i  U-'  '''  , iM 
ji    ''  '  i 

: 

\ 

i, 
i 

'■  '■ 

k 

mii 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Hm]     1 

pi 
i:  i 

Ik 

„ 


■.H' 


Hi    ■  ! 


till ,  ,i'y.. 


LieKARV 

o:--  Tin: 

University  of  California. 

Mrs.  SARAH  P.  WALSWORTH. 

Received  October,  1894. 
Accessions  No.  6  "J C  ^       Class  No. 


\ 


THE 


LATER   PROPHECIES 


OF 


ISAIAH. 


BY 


JOSEPH  ADDISON  ALEXANDER, 

PROFESSOR    IN    THE    THEOLOGICAL    SEMINARY,    PRINCETON,    NEW   JERSEY. 


NEW-YORK  &  LONDON: 

WILEY   AND    PUTNAM. 

1847. 


ijift 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1847,  by 

Joseph  Addison  Alexander, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  United  States  District  Court  for  the  District  of  New  Jersey. 


PREFACE. 


This  volume  is  a  sequel  to  the  one  which  appeared  about  a 
year  ago,  under  the  title  of  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  the  two  toge- 
ther forming  a  continuous  Commentary  on  Isaiah.  While  the  same 
plan  has  been  here  retained  without  alteration,  I  have  aimed  at 
greater  uniformity  of  execution,  as  well  as  a  more  critical  selection 
of  materials.  The  reasons  for  a  separate  investigation  of  these 
later  chapters  have  been  stated  in  the  introduction  to  the  other 
volume.  In  addition  to  the  authors  there  enumerated,  I  have 
carefully  compared  the  English  version  and  remarks  of  Noyes 
(second  edition,  Boston,  1843)  and  die  Cyro-jesaianischen 
Weissagungen  of  Beck  (Leipzig,  1844)  ;  the  first  of  which,  though 
elegant  and  scholarlike,  is  too  closely  modelled  on  Gesenius  to 
afford  much  new  matter,  and  the  other  is  remarkable  chiefly  for 
the  boldness  of  its  ultra-rationalistic  doctrines,  and  the  juvenile 
flippancy  with  which  they  are  expressed.  Of  both  these  works 
occasional  citations  will  be  met  with  in  the  present  volume. 

In  the  exposition  of  the  last  seven  chapters,  too  polemical  an 
attitude,  perhaps,  has  been  assumed  with  respect  to  a  distinguished 
living  writer.  Dr.  Henderson,  to  whose  abilities  and  learning  I 
have  elsewhere  endeavoured  to  do  justice.  The  prominence  here 
given  to  his  book  has  arisen  from  his  happening  to  be  not  only 
the  best  but  the  sole  representative  of  certain  views  among  the 
professed  expounders  of  Isaiah.  As  to  the  question  in  dispute, 
the  ground  which  I  have  taken  and  endeavoured  to  maintain  is 
the  negative  position,  that  the  truth  of  these  "  exceeding  great 
and  precious  promises  "  is  not  suspended  on  the  future  restoration 
of  the  Jews  to  Palestine,  without  denying  such  a  restoration  to 
be  possible  or  promised  elsewhere. 


iv  PREFACE. 

In  this,  as  well  as  in  the  other  volume,  I  may  possibly  have 
pushed  the  rule  of  rigorous  translation  to  an  extreme  ;  but  if  so,  it 
is  an  extreme  from  which  recession  is  much  easier  and  safer  than 
recovery  from  that  of  laxity  and  vagueness.  By  the  course  thus 
taken,  I  am  not  without  hope  that  some  light  may  be  thrown 
upon  the  darker  parts  of  Hebrew  Grammar,  and  especially  the 
doctrine  of  the  tenses,  which  can  never  be  completely  solved 
except  by  a  laborious  induction  of  particulars. 

While  I  deem  it  proper  to  observe  that  I  have  read  only  two 
sheets  of  this  volume  during  its  progress  through  the  press,  I  am 
happy  to  add  that  it  has  passed  through  the  hands  of  Mr.  W.  W. 
Turner,  to  whom  so  many  other  works  in  this  department  are 
indebted  for  the  accuracy  of  their  execution. 

I  have  still  kept  steadily  in  view,  as  my  immediate  readers,  to 
whose  wants  the  work  must  be  adapted,  clergymen  and  students 
of  theology,  considered  as  the  actual  or  future  teachers  of  the 
Church.  Through  them  I  may  perhaps  indulge  the  hope  of  doing 
something  to  promote  correct  opinions,  and  a  taste  for  exegetical 
j)ursuits,  as  means  of  intellectual  and  spiritual  culture,  even  though 
this  should  prove  to  be  my  last  as  well  as  first  contribution  to  the 
stores  of  sacred  learning. 

Princeton,  March  20,  1847. 


INTRODUCTION. 


One  of  the  most  important  functions  of  the  prophetic  office  was  the 
exposition  of  the  Law,  that  is  to  say,  of  the  Mosaic  institutions,  the  peculiar 
form  in  which  the  Church  was  organized  until  the  advent  of  Messiah.  This 
inspired  exposition  was  of  absolute  necessity,  in  order  to  prevent  or  to 
correct  mistakes  which  were  constantly  arising,  not  only  from  the  blindness 
and  perverseness  of  the  people,  but  from  the  very  nature  of  the  system 
under  which  they  lived.  That  system,  being  temporary  and  symbolical, 
was  necessarily  material,  ceremonial,  and  restrictive  in  its  forms;  as  nothing 
purely  spiritual  could  be  symbolical  or  typical  of  other  spiritual  things,  nor 
could  a  catholic  or  free  constitution  have  secured  the  necessary  segregation 
of  the  people  from  all  others  for  a  temporary  purpose. 

The  evils  incident  to  such  a  state  of  things  were  the  same  that  have 
occurred  in  many  other  like  cases,  and  may  all  be  derived  from  the  superior 
influence  of  sensible  objects  on  the  mass  of  men,  and  from  the  consequent 
propensity  to  lose  sight  of  the  end  in  the  use  of  the  means,  and  to  confound 
the  sign  with  the  thing  signified.  The  precise  form  and  degree  of  this 
perversion  no  doubt  varied  with  the  change  of  times  and  circumstances,  and 
a  corresponding  difference  must  have  existed  in  the  action  of  the  Prophets 
who  were  called  to  exert  a  corrective  influence  on  these  abuses. 

In  the  days  of  Hezekiah,  the  national  corruption  had  already  passed 
through  several  phases,  each  of  which  might  still  be  traced  in  its  effects, 
and  none  of  which  had  wholly  vanished.  Sometimes  the  prevailing  tendency 
had  been  to  make  the  ceremonial  form  of  the  Mosaic  worship,  and  its 
consequent  coincidence  in  certain  points  with  the  religions  of  surrounding 
nations,  an  occasion  or  a  pretext  for  adopting  heathen  rites  and  usages,  at 
first  as  a  mere  extension  and  enlargement  of  the  ritual  itself,  then  more 
boldly  as  an  arbitrary  mixture  of  heterogeneous  elements,  and  lastly  as  an 
open  and  entire  substitution  of  the  false  for  the  true,  and  of  Baal,  Ashtoreth, 
or  Moloch,  for  Jehovah. 

At  other  times  the  same  corruption  had  assumed  a  less  revolting  form 
and  been  contented  with  perverting  the  Mosaic  institutions  while  externally 


yl  INTRODUCTION. 

and  zealously  adhering  to  them.  The  two  points  from  which  this  insidious 
process  of  perversion  set  out  were  the  nature  and  design  of  the  ceremonial 
law,  and  the  relation  of  the  chosen  people  to  the  rest  of  men.  As  to  the 
first,  it  soon  became  a  current  and  at  last  a  fixed  opinion  with  the  mass  of 
irreligious  Jews,  that  the  riiual  acts  of  the  Mosaic  service  had  an  intrinsic 
efficacy,  or  a  kind  of  magical  effect  upon  the  moral  and  spiritual  state  of  the 
worshipper.  Against  this  error  the  Law  itself  had  partially  provided  by 
occasional  violations  and  suspensions  of  its  own  most  rigorous  demands, 
plainly  implying  that  the  rites  were  not  intrinsically  efficacious,  but  signi- 
ficant of  something  else.  As  a  single  instance  of  this  general  fact  it  may  be 
mentioned,  that  although  the  sacrifice  of  life  is  every  where  throughout  the 
ceremonial  law  presented  as  the  symbol  of  atonement,  yet  in  certain  cases, 
where  the  circumstances  of  the  offerer  forbade  an  animal  oblation,  he  was 
suffered  to  present  one  of  a  vegetable  nature,  even  where  the  service  was 
directly  and  exclusively  expiatory, — a  substitution  wholly  inconsistent  with 
the  doctrine  of  an  intrinsic  virtue  or  a  magical  effect,  but  perfectly  in 
harmony  with  that  of  a  symbolical  and  typical  design,  in  which  the  uni- 
formity of  the  external  symbol,  although  rigidly  maintained  in  general, 
might  be  dispensed  with  in  a  rare  and  special  case  without  absurdity  or 
inconvenience. 

It  mi^ht  easily  be  shown  that  the  same  corrective  was  provided  by  the 
Law  itself  in  its  occasional  departure  from  its  own  requisitions  as  to  time  and 
place  and  the  officiating  person  ;  so  that  no  analogy  whatever  really  exists 
between  the  Ijcvitical  economy,  even  as  expounded  by  itself,  and  the  ritual 
systems  which  in  later  times  have  been  so  confidently  built  upon  it.  But 
the  single  instance  which  has  been  already  cited  will  suffice  to  illustrate  the 
extent  of  the  perversion  which  at  an  early  period  had  taken  root  among  the 
Jews  as  to  the  real  nature  and  design  of  their  ceremonial  services.  The 
natural  effect  of  such  an  error  on  the  spirit  and  the  morals  is  too  obvious  in 
itself,  and  too  explicitly  recorded  in  the  sacred  history,  to  require  either 
proof  or  illustration. 

On  the  other  great  point,  the  relation  of  the  Jews  to  the  surrounding 
nations,  their  opinions  seem  to  have  become  at  an  early  period  equally 
erroneous.  In  this  as  in  the  other  case,  they  went  wrong  by  a  superficial 
judgment  founded  on  appearances,  by  looking  simply  at  the  means  before 
them,  and  neither  forwards  to  their  end,  nor  backwards  to  their  origin. 
From  the  indisputable  facts  of  Israel's  divine  election  as  the  people  of 
Jehovah,  his  extraordinary  preservation  as  such,  and  his  undisturbed  exclu- 
sive possession  of  the  written  word  and  the  accompanying  rites,  they  had 
drawn  the  natural  but  false  conclusion,  that  this  national  pre-eminence  was 
founded  on  intrinsic  causes,  or  at  least  on  some  original  and  perpetual 
distinction  in  their  favour.     This  led  them  to  repudiate  or  forget  the  funda- 


INTRODUCTION.  vii 

mental  truth  of  their  whole  history,  to  wit,  that  they  were  set  apart  and 
kept  apart,  not  for  the  ruin  and  disgrace,  but  for  the  ultimate  benefit  and 
honour  of  the  whole  world,  or  rather  of  the  whole  church  which  was  to  be 
gathered  from  all  nations,  and  of  which  the  ancient  Israel  was  designed  to 
be  the  symbol  and  the  representative.  As  it  had  pleased  God  to  elect  a 
certain  portion  of  mankind  to  everlasting  life  through  Christ,  so  it  pleased 
him  that  until  Christ  came,  this  body  of  elect  ones,  scattered  through  all 
climes  and  ages,  should  be  represented  by  a  single  nation,  and  that  this 
representative  body  should  be  the  sole  depository  of  divine  truth  and  a 
divinely  instituted  worship;  while  the  ultimate  design  of  this  arrangement 
was  kept  constantly  in  view  by  the  free  access  which  in  all  ages  was  afforded 
to  the  gentiles  who  consented  to  embrace  the  true  religion. 

It  is  difficult  indeed  to  understand  how  the  Jews  could  reconcile  the 
imm.eraorial  reception  of  proselytes  from  other  nations,  with  the  doo-nia  of 
national  superiority  and  exclusive  hereditary  right  to  the  divine  favour.  The 
only  solution  of  this  singular  phenomenon  is  furnished  by  continual  recur- 
rence to  the  great  representative  principle  on  which  the  Jewish  church  was 
organized,  and  which  was  carried  out  not  only  in  the  separation  of  the 
body  as  a  whole  from  other  men,  but  in  the  internal  constitution  of  the 
body  itself,  and  more  especially  in  the  separation  of  a  whole  tribe  from  the 
rest  of  Israel,  and  of  a  single  family  in  that  tribe  from  the  other  Levites, 
and  of  a  single  person  in  that  family,  in  whom  was  finally  concentrated  the 
whole  representation  of  the  Body  on  the  one  hand,  while  on  the  other  he 
was  a  constituted  type  of  the  Head. 

If  the  Jews  could  have  been  made  to  understand  or  to  remember  that 
their  national  pre-eminence  was  representative,  not  original ;  symbolical,  not 
real ;  provisional,  not  perpetual,  it  could  never  have  betrayed  them  into 
hatred  or  contempt  of  other  nations,  but  would  rather  have  cherished  an 
enlarged  and  catholic  spirit,  as  it  did  in  the  most  enlightened, — an  effect 
which  may  be  clearly  traced  in  the  writings  of  Moses,  David,  and  Isaiah. 
That  view  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation  which  regards  this  Jewish  bigotry  as 
its  genuine  spirit  is  demonstrably  a  false  one.  The  true  spirit  of  the  old 
economy  was  not  indeed  a  latitudinarian  indifference  to  its  institutions,  or  a 
premature  anticipation  of  a  state  of  things  still  future.  It  was  scrupulously 
faithful  even  to  the  temporary  institutions  of  the  ancient  church  ;  but  while 
it  looked  upon  them  as  obligatory,  it  did  not  look  upon  them  as  perpetual. 
It  obeyed  the  present  requisitions  of  Jehovah,  but  still  looked  forward  to 
something  better.  Hence  the  failure  to  account,  on  any  other  supposition, 
for  the  seeming  contradictions  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  reference  to  the 
ceremonies  of  the  Law.  If  worthless,  why  were  they  so  conscientiously 
observed  by  the  best  and  wisest  men  ?  If  intrinsically  valuable,  why  are 
they  disparaged  and  almost  repudiated  by  the  same  men  ?    Simply  because 


VIII 


INTRODUCTION. 


they  were  neiiher  worthless  nor  intrinsically  valuable,  but  appointed  tempo- 
rary signs  ofsonieiliing  to  be  otherwise  revealed  thereafter;  so  that  it  was 
equally  impious  and  foolish  to  rtject  them  altogether  with  the  skeptic,  and  to 
rest  in  them  for  ever  with  the  formalist. 

It  is  no  less  true,  and  for  exactly  the  same  reason,  that  the  genuine 
spirit  of  the  old  economy  was  equally  adverse  to  all  religious  mixture  with 
the  heathen  or  renunciation  of  the  Jewish  privileges  on  one  hand,  and  to  all 
contracted  national  conceit  and  hatred  of  the  gentiles  on  the  other.  Yet 
both  these  forms  of  error  had  become  fixed  in  the  Jewish  creed  and  character 
long  before  the  days  of  Ilezekiah.  That  they  were  not  universal  even  then, 
we  have  abundant  proof  in  the  Old  Testament.  Even  in  the  worst  of 
times,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  a  portion  of  the  people  held  fast  to  the 
true  doctrine  and  the  true  spirit  of  the  extraordinary  system  under  which 
they  lived.  How  large  this  more  enlightened  party  was  at  any  time,  and 
to  how  small  a  remnant  it  was  ever  reduced,  we  have  not  the  means  of 
ascertaining  ;  but  we  know  that  it  was  always  in  existence,  and  that  it 
constituted  the  true  Israel,  the  real  church  of  the  Old  Testament. 

To  this  class  the  corruption  of  the  general  body  must  have  been  a  cause 
not  only  of  sorrow  but  of  apprehension  ;  and  if  express  prophetic  threaten- 
ings  had  been  wanting,  they  could  scarcely  fail  to  anticipate  the  punishment 
and  even  the  rejection  of  their  nation.  But  in  this  anticipation  they  were 
themselves  liable  to  error.  Their  associations  were  so  intimately  blended 
with  the  institutions  under  which  they  lived,  that  they  must  have  found  it 
bard  to  separate  the  idea  of  Israel  as  a  church  from  that  of  Israel  as  a 
nation, — a  difficulty  similar  in  kind,  however  different  in  degree,  from  that 
which  we  experience  in  forming  a  conception  of  the  continued  existence  of 
the  soul  without  the  body.  And  as  all  men,  in  the  latter  case,  however 
fully  they  may  be  persuaded  of  the  separate  existence  of  the  spirit  and  of 
its  future  disembodied  state,  habitually  speak  of  it  in  terms  strictly  applicable 
only  to  its  j)resent  state,  so  the  ancient  saints,  however  strong  their  faith, 
were  under  the  necessity  of  framing  their  conceptions,  as  to  future  things, 
upon  the  model  of  those  present;  and  the  imperceptible  extension  of  this 
process  beyond  the  limits  of  necessity,  would  naturally  tend  to  generate 
errors  not  of  form  merely  but  of  substance.  Among  these  we  may  readily 
suppose  to  have  had  place  the  idea  that,  as  Israel  had  been  unfaithful  to  its 
trust,  and  was  to  be  rejected,  the  Church  or  People  of  God  must  as  a  body 
share  the  same  fate;  or  in  other  words,  that  if  the  national  Israel  perished, 
the  spiritual  Israel  must  perish  with  it,  at  least  so  Air  as  to  be  disorganized 
and  resolved  into  its  elements. 

The  same  confusion  of  ideas  still  exists  among  the  uninstructed  classes, 
and  to  some  extent  among  the  more  enlightened  also,  in  those  countries  where 
the  Church  has  for  ages  been  a  national  establishment,  and  scarcely  known 


INTRODUCTION.  ix 

in  any  other  form  ;  as,  for  instance,  in  Sweden  and  Norway  among  Protes- 
tants, or  Spain  and  Portugal  among  the  Papists.  To  the  most  devout  in 
such  communities  the  downfal  of  th3  iiierarchical  estabhshment  seems 
perfectly  identical  with  the  extinction  of  the  church  ;  and  nothing  but  a 
long  course  of  jnstruction,  and  perhaps  experience,  could  enable  them  to 
form  the  idea  of  a  disembodied,  unestablished  Christian  church.  If  such 
mistakes  are  possible  and  real  even  now,  we  have  little  reason  either  to 
dispute  their  existence  or  to  wonder  at  it,  under  the  complicated  forms  and 
in  the  imperfect  light  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation.  It  is  not  only  credible 
but  altogether  natural,  that  even  true  believers,  unassisted  by  a  special  reve- 
lation, should  have  shunned  the  extreme  of  looking  upon  Israel's  pre-emi- 
nence among  the  nations  as  original  and  perpetual,  only  by  verging  towards 
the  opposite  error  of  supposing  that  the  downfal  of  the  nation  would  involve 
the  abolition  of  the  church,  and  human  unbelief  defeat  the  purposes  and 
make  void  the  promises  of  God. 

Here  then  are  several  distinct  but  cognate  forms  of  error,  which  appear 
to  have  gained  currency  among  the  Jews  before  the  time  of  Hezekiah,  in 
relation  to  the  two  great  distinctive  features  of  their  national  condition,  the 
ceremonial  law  and  their  seclusion  from  the  gentiles.  Upon  each  of  these 
points  there  were  two  shades  of  opinion  entertained  by  very  different  classes. 
The  Mosaic  ceremonies  were  with  some  a  pretext  for  idolatrous  observances; 
while  others  rested  in  them,  not  as  types  or  symbols,  but  as  efficacious  means 
of  expiation.  The  pre-eminence  of  Israel  was  by  some  regarded  as  perpe- 
tual; while  others  apprehended  in  its  termination  the  extinction  of  the 
church  itself.  These  various  forms  of  error  might  be  variously  combined 
and  modified  in  different  cases,  and  their  general  result  must  of  course  have 
contributed  largely  to  determine  the  character  of  the  church  and  nation. 

It  was  not,  perhaps,  until  these  errors  had  begun  to  take  a  definite  and 
settled  form  among  the  people,  that  the  Prophets,  who  had  hitherto  confined 
themselves  to  oral  instruction  or  historical  composition,  were  directed  to  utter 
and  record  for  constant  use  discourses  meant  to  be  corrective  or  condemna- 
tory of  these  dangerous  perversions.  This  may  at  least  be  regarded  as  a 
plausible  solution  of  the  fact  that  prophetic  writing  in  the  strict  sense 
became  so  much  more  abundant  in  the  later  days  of  the  Old  Testament 
history.  Of  these  prophetic  writings,  still  preserved  in  our  canon,  there  is 
scarcely  any  part  which  has  not  a  perceptible  and  direct  bearing  on  the 
state  of  feeling  and  opinion  which  has  been  described.  This  is  emphati- 
cally true  of  Isaiah's  Earlier  Prophecies,  which,  though  so  various  in  form 
are  all  adapted  to  correct  the  errors  in  question,  or  to  establish  the  antago- 
nistic truths.  This  general  design  of  the  predictions  might  be  so  used  as  to 
throw  new  light  upon  their  exposition,  by  connecting  it  more  closely  with 
the  prevalent  errors  of  the  ancient  church  than  was  attempted  in   the  other 


X  INTRODUCTION. 

volume.  Guided  even  by  this  vague  suggestion,  an  attentive  reader  will  be 
able  for  the  most  part  to  determine  with  respect  to  each  successive  portion 
whether  it  was  specially  intended  to  rebuke  idolatry,  to  rectify  the  errors  of 
the  formalist  in  reference  to  the  ceremonial  system,  to  bring  down  the 
arrogance  of  a  mistaken  nationality,  or  to  console  the  true  believer  by 
assuring  him  that  though  the  carnal  Israel  should  perish,  the  true  Israel 
must  endure  for  ever. 

But  although  this  purpose  may  be  traced,  to  some  extent,  in  all  the 
prophecies,  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  soinc  part  of  the  canon  would  be 
occupied  with  a  direct,  extensive,  and  continuous  exhibition  of  the  truth 
upon  a  subject  so  momentous;  and  the  date  of  such  a  prophecy  could 
scarcely  be  assigned  to  any  other  period  so  naturally  as  to  that  which  has 
been  specified,  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  when  all  the  various  forms  of  error 
and  corruption  which  had  successively  prevailed  were  co-existent,  when 
idolatry,  although  suppressed  by  law  was  still  openly  or  secretly  practised, 
and  in  many  cases  superseded  only  by  a  hypocritical  formality  and  ritual 
relif^ion,  attended  by  an  overweening  sense  of  the  national  pre-eminence  of 
Israel,  from  which  even  the  most  godly  seem  to  liave  found  refuge  in 
despondent  fears  and  skeptical  misgivings.  At  such  a  time, — when  the 
theocracy  had  long  since  reached  and  passed  its  zenith,  and  a  series  of 
providential  shocks,  with  intervals  of  brief  repose,  had  already  begun  to 
loosen  the  foundations  of  the  old  economy  in  preparation  for  its  ultimate 
removal, — such  a  discourse  as  that  supposed  must  have  been  eminently 
seasonable,  if  not  absolutely  needed,  to  rebuke  sin,  correct  error,  and  sustain 
the  hopes  of  true  believers.  It  was  equally  important,  nay,  essential  to  the 
(Treat  end  of  the  temporary  system,  that  the  way  for  its  final  abrogation 
should  be  gradually  prepared,  and  that  in  the  meantime  it  should  be  main- 
tained in  constant  operation. 

If  the  circumstances  of  the  times  which  have  been  stated  are  enough  to 
make  it  probable  that  such  a  revelation  would  be  given,  they  will  also  aid 
us  in  determining  beforehand,  not  in  detail,  but  in  the  general,  its  form  and 
character.  The  historical  occasion  and  the  end  proposed  would  naturally 
lead  us  to  expect  in  such  a  book  the  simultaneous  or  alternate  presentation 
of  a  few  great  leading  truths,  perhaps  with  accompanying  refutation  of  the 
adverse  errors,  and  with  such  reproofs,  remonstrances  and  exhortations, 
promises  and  threatenings,  as  the  condition  of  the  people  springing  from  these 
errors  might  require,  not  only  at  the  date  of  the  prediction  but  in  later 
times.  In  executing  this  design  the  Prophet  might  have  been  expected  to 
pursue  a  method  more  rhetorical  than  logical,  and  to  enforce  his  doctrine 
not  so  much  by  dry  didactic  statements  as  by  animated  argument  combined 
with  earnest  exhortation,  passionate  appeals,  poetical  apostrophes,  impres- 
sive repetitions,  and  illustrations  drawn  both  from  the  ancient  and  the  later 


INTRODUCTION. 


XI 


history  of  Israel.  In  fine,  from  what  has  been  ah-eady  said,  It  follows  that 
the  doctrines  which  would  naturally  constitute  the  staple  of  the  prophecy 
in  such  a  case,  are  those  relating  to  the  true  design  of  Israel's  vocation  and 
seclusion  from  the  gentiles,  and  of  the  ceremonial  institutions  under  which 
he  was  in  honourable  bondage.  The  sins  and  errors  which  find  their  condem- 
nation in  the  statement  of  these  truths  are  those  of  actual  idolatry,  a  ritual 
formality,  a  blinded  nationality,  and  a  despondent  apprehension  of  the 
failure  of  Jehovah's  promise.  Such  might  even  a  priori  be  regarded  as  the 
probable  structure  and  complexion  of  a  prophecy  or  series  of  prophecies 
intended  to  secure  the  end  in  question.  If  the  person  called  to  this  important 
service  had  already  been  the  organ  oC  divine  communications  upon  other 
subjects,  or  with  more  direct  reference  to  other  objects,  it  would  be  reason- 
able to  expect  a  marked  diversity  between  these  former  prophecies  and  that 
uttered  under  a  new  impulse.  Besides  the  very  great  and  striking  differ- 
ence which  must  always  be  perceptible  between  a  series  of  detached  compo- 
sitions, varying,  and  possibly  remote  from  one  another  as  to  date,  and  a 
continuous  discourse  on  one  great  theme,  there  would  be  other  unavoidable 
distinctions  springing  directly  from  the  new  and  wide  scope  of  prophetic 
vision,  and  from  the  concentration  in  one  vision  of  the  elements  diffused 
through  many  others.  This  diversity  would  be  enhanced,  of  course,  by 
any  striking  difference  of  outward  circumstances,  such  as  the  advanced  age 
of  the  writer,  his  matured  experience,  his  seclusion  from  the  world  and  from 
active  life,  or  any  other  changes  which  might  have  the  same  effect ;  but 
even  in  the  absence  of  these  outward  causes,  the  diversity  would  still  be 
very  great  and  unavoidable. 

From  these  probabilities  let  us  now  turn  to  realities.  Precisely  such  a 
book  as  that  described  is  extant,  having  formed  a  part  of  the  collection  of 
Isaiah's  Prophecies  as  far  back  as  the  history  of  the  canon  can  be  traced, 
without  the  slightest  vestige  of  a  different  tradition  among  Jews  or  Chris- 
tians as  to  the  author.  The  tone  and  spirit  of  these  chapters  are  precisely 
such  as  might  have  been  expected  from  the  circumstances  under  which  they 
are  alleged  to  have  been  written,  and  their  variations  from  the  earlier  chap- 
ters such  as  must  have  been  expected  from  the  change  in  the  circumstances 
themselves. 

A  cursory  inspection  of  these  Later  Prophecies  is  enough  to  satisfy  the 
reader  that  he  has  before  him  neither  a  concatenated  argument  nor  a  mass 
of  fragments,  but  a  continuous  discourse  in  which  the  same  great  topics  are 
continually  following  each  other,  somewhat  modified  in  form  and  combi- 
nation, but  essentially  the  same  from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  If  required 
to  designate  a  single  theme  as  that  of  the  whole  series,  we  might  safely  give 
the  preference  to  Israel,  the  Peculiar  People,  the  Church  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, its  origin,  vocation,  mission,  sins  and  sufferings,  former  experience  and 


j^i;  INTRODUCTION. 

final    destiny.     The   doctrine  inculcated  as  to  this  great  subject  may   be 
sunnnarily   stated    thus.     Tiie  race  of  Israel   was  chosen   from  among  the 
oiht-r  nations,  and   maintained  in  the  possession  of  peculiar  privileges,  not 
for  the  sake  of  any  original  or  acquired  merit,  but  by  a  sovereign  act  of  the 
divine  will  ;  not  for  their  own  exclusive  benefit  and  aggrandizement,  but  for 
the  ultimate  salvation  of  the  world.    The  ceremonies  of  the  Law  were  of  no 
intrinsic  efficacy,  and  when  so  regarded  and  relied  on  became  hateful  in  the 
sit^ht  of  God.     Siill  more  al)surd  and  impious  was  the  practice  of  analogous 
ceremonies  not  in  obedience  lo  Jehovah's  will,  but  in  the  worship  of  imagi- 
nary deities  or  idols.   The  Leviiical  rites,  besides  immediate  uses  of  a  lower 
kind,  were  symbols  of  God's  holiness  and  man's  corruption,  the  necessity  of 
expiation  in  general,  and  of  expiation  by  vicarious  suffering  in  particular. 
Amon"-  them  there  were  also  types,  prophetic  symbols,  of  the  very  form  in 
which  the  f'real  work  of  atonement  was  to  be  accomplished,  and  of  Him  by 
whom   it   was   to  be    performed.     Until  this  work   was  finished,  and  this 
Saviour  come,  the  promise  of  both  was  exclusively  entrusted  to  the  chosen 
people,  wli^were  bound  to  preserve  it  both  in  its  written  and  its  ritual  form. 
To  this  momentous  trust  a  large  part  of  the  nation  had  been  unfaithful,  some 
avowedly  forsaking  it   as  open  idolaters,  some  practically  betraying  it  as 
formal  hypocrites.     For  these  and  other  consequent  offences,  Israel  as  a 
nation  was  to  be   rejected  and   deprived  of  its  pre-eminence.     But  in  so 
doing  God  would  not  cast  off  his  people.     The  promises  to  Israel,  consi- 
dered as  the  people  of  Jehovah,  should  enure  to  the  body  of  believers,  the 
remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace.     These  were  in  fact  from  the 
beoinnin<r  the  true  Israel,   the  true  seed  of  Abraham,  the  Jews  who  were 
Jews  inwardly.     In  these  the  continued  existence  of  the  church  should  be 
secured  and  perpetuated,  first  within  the  limits  of  the  outward  Israel,  and 
then  by  the  accession  of  believing  gentiles  to  the  spiritual  Israel.  When  the 
fulness  of  time  should  come  for  the  removal  of  the  temporary  and  restrictive 
institutions  of  the  old  economy,  that  change  should  be  so  ordered  us  not 
only  to  effect  the  emancipation  of  the  church  from  ceremonial  bondage,  but 
at  the  same  time  to  attest  the  divine  disapprobation  of  the  sins  committed  by 
the  carnal  Israel  throughout  their  history.     While  these  had  every  thing  to 
fear  from  the  approaching  change,  the  spiritual   Israel  had  every  thing  to 
l,ope, — not  only  the  continued  existence  of  the  church,   but  its  existence 
under  a  more  spiritual,  free,  and  glorious  dispensation,  to  be  ushered  in  by 
the  appearance  of  that  great  Deliverer  towards  whom  the  ceremonies  of  the 
Law  all  pointed. 

From  this  succinct  statement  of  the  Prophet's  doctrine,  it  is  easy  to 
account  for  some  peculiarities  of  form  and  phraseology,  particularly  for  the 
constant  alternation  of  encouragement  and  threatening,  and  for  the  twofold 
sense  or  rather  application  of  the  national  name,  Israel.    This  latter  usage 


INTRODUCTION.  xiii 

is  explained  by  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (ch.  2  :  17-29.  9  :  6-9. 
11  :  1-7),  where  the  very  same  doctrine  is  propounded  in  relation  to  the 
ancient  church  that  we  have  just  obtained  by  a  fair  induction  from  Isaiah's 
Later  Prophecies.  There  is  in  fact  no  part  of  the  Old  Testament  to  which 
the  New  affords  a  more  decisive  key  in  the  shape  of  an  authoritative  and 
inspired  interpretation. 

Anotlier  peculiarity  of  form  highly  important  in  the  exposition  of  these 
Prophecies  is  the  frequent  introduction  of  allusions  to  particular  events  in 
the  history  of  Israel,  as  examples  of  the  general  truths  so  constantly 
repeated.  The  events  thus  cited  are  not  numerous,  but  of  the  greatest 
magnitude,  such  as  the  calling  of  Abraham,  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  the 
destruction  of  Babylon,  the  return  from  exile,  and  the  advent  of  Messiah. 
These  events  have  sometimes  been  confounded  by  interpreters,  and  even  so 
far  misconceived  as  to  put  a  new  and  false  face  on  the  whole  prediction,  as 
we  shall  have  occasion  more  explicitly  to  state  below.  At  present,  let  it 
be  observed  that  the  prophetical  discourse  is  continually  varied  and  relieved 
by  these  historical  allusions. 

The  fairest  and  the  most  decisive  test  by  which  the  foregoing  views  of 
the  design  and  subject  of  these  Later  Prophecies  can  be  tried,  is  one  within 
the  reach  of  any  reader  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  apply  it,  by  a  careful 
perusal  of  the  prophecies  themselves,  even  without  any  other  comment  than 
the  general  suggestions  which  have  been  already  made.  If  this  should  still 
prove  insufficient  to  establish  the  correctness  of  the  exegetical  hypothesis 
proposed,  that  end  may  still  be  answered  by  comparing  this  hypothesis  with 
others  which  have  more  or  less  prevailed  among  interpreters. 

Let  us  first  compare  with  the  hypothesis  just  stated,  the  one  assumed 
wholly  or  in  part  by  Cocceius  and  others,  who  appear  disposed  to  recog- 
nise in  these  Later  Prophecies  specific  periods  and  events  in  the  history  of 
the  Christian  church.  Of  this  abundant  illustration  will  be  given  in  the 
Commentary  on  the  Prophecies  themselves.  Meantime,  it  may  be  stated 
in  the  general,  that  besides  the  arbitrary  character  of  such  interpretation, 
and  the  infinite  diversity  which  it  exhibits  in  the  hands  of  different  writers, 
it  creates  the  necessity  of  putting  the  most  forced  interpretations  on  the 
plainest  terms,  and  of  denying  that  Babylon,  Israel,  etc.  were  intended 
to  mean  Babylon,  Israel,  etc.  in  any  sense  warranted  by  Hebrew  usage. 
And  even  in  those  parts  of  the  Pro|)hecy  which  do  refer  to  later  times  and 
to  the  new  dispensation,  these  interpreters  are  under  the  necessity  of 
violating  one  of  the  most  strongly  marked  peculiarities  of  this  whole  book, 
viz.  the  general  view  which  it  exhibits  of  the  new  dispensation  as  a  whole, 
from  its  inception  to  its  consummation,  as  contrasted  with  the  more  specific 
mention  of  particular  events  before  the  change,  even  when  future  to  the 
Prophet's   own   times.     This  mode  of  exposition,  at  least  in    its  extreme 


xivr  INTRODUCTION. 

forms,  lias  received  its  most  effective  refutation  from  the  lapse  of  time. 
When  we  find  such  writers  as  Cocceius,  and  less  frequently  Vitringa, 
seeking  the  fulfilment  of  grand  prophecies  in  petty  squabbles  of  the  Dutch 
Church  or  Republic,  which  have  long  since  lost  their  place  in  general 
history,  the  practical  lesson  thus  imparted  is  of  more  force  than  the  most 
ingenious  arguments,  to  show  that  such  interpretation  rests  upon  a  fiilse 
hypothesis. 

A  very  different  fate  has  been  experienced  by  the  ancient  and  still 
current  doctrine  that  the  main  subject  of  these  Prophecies  throughout,  is 
the  restoration  from  the  Babylonish  exile.  While  this  hypothesis  has  been 
assumed  as  undeniable  by  many  Christian  writers,  it  affords  the  whole  foun- 
dation of  the  modern  neological  criticism  and  exegesis.  It  is  worth  while, 
therefore,  to  examine  somewhat  closely  the  pretensions  of  this  theory  to 
general  reception. 

In  the  first  place,  let  it  be  observed  how  seldom,  after  all,  the  book 
mentions  Babylon,  the  Exile,  or  the  Restoration.  This  remark  is  made  in 
reference  to  those  cases  only  where  these  subjects  are  expressly  mentioned, 
i.  e.  either  named  totidcm  verbis,  or  described  in  terms  which  will  apply  to 
nothing  else.  An  exact  enumeration  of  such  cases,  made  for  the  first  time, 
might  surprise  one  whose  previous  impressions  had  been  all  derived  from 
the  Svveeping  declarations  of  interpreters  and  critics.  It  is  true  the  cases 
may  be  vastly  multiplied  by  taking  into  the  account  all  the  indirect  allusions 
which  these  writers  are  accustomed  to  assume,  i.  e.  by  applying  to  the 
Exile  all  the  places  and  particular  expressions  which  admit  by  possibility  of 
such  an  application.  Having  first  inferred  from  the  explicit  prophecies 
respecting  Babylon,  that  this  is  the  great  subject  of  the  book,  it  is  perfectly 
easy  to  apply  to  this  same  subject  hundreds  of  phrases  in  themselves  inde- 
finite and  wholly  dependent  for  specific  meaning  upon  some  hypothesis  like 
that  in  question. 

The  necessary  tendency  of  such  a  method  to  excess,  is  illustrated  by 
the  gradual  advances  of  the  later  German  writers  in  the  specific  explanation 
of  these  chapters.  WHiere  Rosenmiiller  and  Gesenius  were  contented  to 
find  general  poetical  descriptions  of  the  Exile  and  the  Restoration,  Hitzig 
detects  precise  chronological  allusions  to  particular  campaigns  and  battles 
in  the  progress  of  Cyrus  ;  and  this  again  is  pushed  so  far  by  Hendewerk 
and  Knobel,  that  they  sometimes  find  more  striking  and  minute  coincidences 
between  this  Hebrew  writer  and  Herodotus  or  Xenophon,  than  any  of  the 
old-fashioned  orthodox  writers  ever  dreamed  of  finding  between  him  and  the 
New  Testament.  To  hear  these  writers  talk  of  the  battle  of  Pasargada,  the 
defeat  of  Neriglassar,  the  first  and  second  attack  on  Babylonia,  the  taking 
of  Sardis,  etc.  etc.  we  might  fiuicy  ourselves  listening  to  Eusebius  or 
Cocceius,  with  a  simple  substitution  of  profane  for  sacred  history. 


INTRODUCTION.  xv 

The  fallacy  of  this  mode  of  interpretation  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  inde- 
finite expressions  thus  applied  to  one  event  or  series  of  events,  might  just  as 
naturally  be  applied  to  others,  if  these  others  were  first  fixed  upon  as  being 
the  mam  subject  of  the  whole  composition.  Thus,  all  admit  that  there  are 
frequent  allusions  in  these  later  chapters  to  the  exodus  from  Egypt.  Now 
if  any  interpreter  should  be  intrepid  and  absurd  enough  to  argue  that  they 
must  have  been  composed  by  Moses,  and  that  the  great  deliverance  then 
wrought  must  be  the  subject  of  the  whole  book,  whatever  difSculties,  and 
however  insurmountable,  this  doctrine  might  encounter  in  a  different  direc- 
tion, it  could  find  none  in  adapting  what  is  said  of  crossing  seas  and  rivers, 
opening  fountains,  journeys  through  the  desert,  subjugation  of  enemies,  rest 
in  the  promised  land,  etc.  etc.  to  the  original  exodus,  with  far  less  violence 
than  to  the  restoration  from  captivity.  It  is  equally  true,  but  in  a  less 
degree,  that  Grotius,  who  refers  some  portions  of  this  book  to  the  period  of 
the  Maccabees,  is  perfectly  successful,  after  having  once  assumed  this  as  the 
subject,  in  accommodating  to  it  many  of  the  very  same  expressions  which 
another  class  of  writers  no  less  confidently  claim  as  clear  allusions  to  the 
Babylonian  exile. 

The  fallacy  of  such  exegelical  reasoning  may  be  further  exposed  by 
applying  the  same  process  to  a  distinct  but  analogous  case.  In  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans,  Paul  is  now  almost  universally  regarded  as  foretelling  the 
restoration  of  the  Jews  to  the  favour  of  God.  Assuming  this  to  be  the 
theme  not  only  of  those  passages  in  which  it  is  expressly  mentioned,  but  of 
the  whole  Epistle,  an  interpreter  of  no  great  ingenuity  might  go  completely 
through  it,  putting  upon  every  general  expression  a  specific  sense,  in  strict 
agreement  with  his  foregone  conclusion.  All  that  relates  to  justification 
might  be  limited  to  the  Jews  of  some  future  day ;  the  glorious  truth  that 
there  is  no  condemnation  to  believers  in  Christ  Jesus,  made  a  specific  and 
exclusive  promise  to  converted  Jews  ;  and  the  precious  promise  that  all 
things  shall  work  together  for  good  to  them  that  love  God,  made  to  mean 
that  all  events  shall  be  so  ordered  as  to  bring  about  the  future  restoration  of 
the  Jews.  The  very  absurdity  of  such  conclusions  makes  them  better 
illustrations  of  the  erroneous  principles  involved  in  similar  interpretations  of 
the  more  obscure  and  less  familiar  parts  of  Scripture. 

Setting  aside  the  cases  which  admit  of  one  application  as  well  as 
another,  or  of  this  application  only  because  of  a  foregone  conclusion,  the 
truth  of  which  cannot  be  determined  by  expressions  deriving  their  specific 
meaning  from  itself,  let  the  reader  now  enumerate  the  instances  in  which 
the  reference  to  Babylon,  the  Exile,  and  the  Restoration,  is  not  only  possible 
but  necessary.  He  must  not  be  surprised  if  he  discovers  as  the  fruit  of  his 
researches,  that  the  Prophet  speaks  of  Babylon  less  frequently  than  Egypt  ; 


XVI 


INTRODUCTION, 


that  the  ruins,  desolations,  and  oppressions,  which  he  mentions  iji  a  multi- 
tude of  places,  are  no  more  Babylonian  than  Egyptian  or  Roman  in  the 
text  itself,  and  only  made  so  by  the  interest  or  fancy  of  some  writers,  the 
authority  of  others,  and  the  easy  faith  of  the  remainder. 

In  opposition  to  these  strained  conclusions,  we  have  only  to  propound 
the  obvious  supposition  that  the  downfal  of  Babylon  is  repeatedly  men- 
tioned, like  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  as  a  great  event  in  the  history  of 
Israel, — but  that  the  subject  of  the  prophecy  is  neither  the  Egyptian  nor 
the  Babylonian  bondage,  nor  deliverance  from  either,  but  the  whole 
condition,  character,  and  destiny  of  Israel  as  the  chosen  people  and  the 
church  of  the  Old  Testament. 

All  the  hypotheses  which  have  been  mentioned  are  agreed  in  assuming 
the  unity  of  these  predictions  as  the  product  not  only  of  a  single  age,  but  of 
a  single  writer.  This  unity,  however,  was  by  no  means  recognised  by 
those  who  first  applied  the  principles  and  methods  of  the  Higher  Criticism  to 
Isaiah.  The  earliest  hint  of  any  new  discovery  is  commonly  ascribed  to 
Koppe,  who  in  a  note  upon  his  German  edition  of  Bishop  Lowth's  work 
suggests  that  the  fiftieth  chapter  may  have  been  written  by  Ezekiel  or 
some  other  Jew  in  exile.  A  similar  opinion  was  expressed  about  the  same 
time  by  Doderlein  and  Eichhorn  with  respect  to  the  entire  latter  part  of 
Isaiah.  The  same  hypothesis  was  then  cariied  out  in  detail  by  Justi,  and 
adopted  by  Bauer,  Paulus,  Bertholdt,  and  Augusti ;  so  that  not  long  after 
the  beginning  of  this  century,  it  was  established  as  the  current  doctrine  of 
the  German  schools. 

This  revolution  of  opinion,  though  ostensibly  the  pure  result  of  critical 
analysis,  was  closely  connected  with  the  growing  unbelief  in  inspiration, 
and  the  consequent  necessity  of  explaining  away  whatever  appeared  either 
to  demonstrate  or  involve  it.  It  must  also  be  noted,  as  a  circumstance  of 
great  importance  in  the  history  of  this  controversy,  that  the  young  theolo- 
gians of  Germany  for  fifty  years  were  almost  as  uniformly  taught  and  as 
constantly  accustomed  to  assume  the  certainty  of  this  first  principle,  as 
their  fathers  had  been  to  assume  the  contrary.  This  fact  will  enable  us  to 
estimate  at  something  like  their  real  value  the  pretensions  to  superior 
candour  and  impartiality  advanced  by  the  neological  interpreters,  and  more 
especially  by  some  of  recent  date,  who  are  in  truth  as  strongly  biassed  by 
the  prejudice  of  education  as  their  immediate  predecessors  by  the  love  of 
novelty  and  passion  for  discovery. 

The  defenders  of  the  unity  of  this  part  of  Isaiah  were  in  process  of  time 
relieved  from  much  of  the  Irksome  task  which  they  had  undertaken  by  the 
concessions  of  the  adverse  party,  that  the  Higher  Criticism  had  been  pushed 
too  far,  and  made  to  prove  too  much  ;  in  consequence  of  which  a   retroces- 


INTRODUCTION.  xvii 

sion  became  necessary,  and  in  fact  took  place  under  the  guidance  of  new 
leaders,  not  without  an  earnest  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  oric^inal 
discoverers. 

This  retreat  was  effected  with  great  skill  and  conduct,  but  with  no  small 
sacrifice  of  logical  consistency,  by  Gesenius  in  the  Introduction  to  his  second 
volume.  Without  any  appeal  to  general  principles  or  any  attempt  to  dis- 
tinguish clearly  between  what  he  abandons  as  "  extreme  "  and  what  he 
adopts  as  rational  conclusions,  he  proceeds,  by  his  favourite  method  of  accu- 
mulation and  arrangement  of  particulars,  to  prove  that  these  twenty-seven 
chapters  are  the  work  of  the  same  author,  and  that  in  the  main  they  are  still 
in  the  same  order  as  at  first,  the  only  material  exception  being  a  surmise  that 
the  last  chapters  may  possibly  be  older  than  the  first ;  which  seems  to  have 
been  prompted  by  a  natural  reluctance  to  acknowledge  that  an  ancient  com- 
position could  remain  so  long  unchanged,  not  without  a  misgiving  with 
respect  to  the  influence  which  this  concession  might  exert  hereafter  on  the 
criticism  of  the  earlier  chapters. 

Although  Gesenius's  argument  in  favour  of  the  unity  of  these  predictions 
is  entirely  successful,  a  large  proportion  of  his  detailed  proofs  are  quite 
superfluous.  It  is  an  error  of  this  German  school,  and  of  its  imitators 
elsewhere,  that  identity  of  authorship  must  be  established  by  minute  resem- 
blances of  diction,  phraseology,  and  syntax,  which  are  therefore  raked 
together  and  displayed  with  a  profusion  far  more  confounding  than 
convincing  to  the  reader.  To  the  great  mass  of  cultivated  minds,  conviction 
in  such  cases  is  produced  by  data  not  susceptible  of  exhibition  in  the  form 
of  schedules,  catalogues,  or  tables,  but  resulting  from  a  general  impression 
of  continuity  and  oneness,  which  might  be  just  as  strong  if  not  a  single 
phrase  or  combination  occurred  more  than  once,  and  the  want  of  which 
could  never  be  supplied  by  any  number  or  servility  of  verbal  repetitions. 
It  is  thus  that  the  modern  imitators  of  the  classics  may  be  almost  infallibly 
detected,  though  their  diction  be  but  a  cento  of  quotations  from  their 
favourite  author,  renewed  and  multiplied  usgue  ad  nauseam;  while  the 
original  is  known  wherever  he  appears,  however  innocent  of  copyino^ 
himself. 

This  error  of  the  higher  or  lower  criticism,  even  when  enlisted  on  the 
right  side  of  a  question,  it  is  important  to  expose  ;  because  many  of  its  boasted 
triumphs  in  behalf  of  error  have  been  gained  by  the  very  petitesse  of  its 
expedients.  The  readers  of  Isaiah,  in  particular,  have  often  been  bewil- 
dered and  unfairly  prepossessed  against  the  truth,  by  the  interminable  cata- 
logues of  Hebrew  words  and  phrases  which  are  crovv^ded  into  prefaces  and 
introductions  as  preliminary  proofs  of  a  position  that  can  only  be  established, 
if  at  all,  by  the  cumulative  weight  of  a  detailed  interpretation;  the  effect 
of  which  is  often   to  expose  the  absolute  futility  of  arguments,  considered 

B 


will 


INTRODUCTION 


one  by  one  and  in  ihcir  proi)cr  place,  which  seem  to  gain  reality  and  force  by 
insulation  from  the  context,  and  by  being  thrown  together  in  crude  masses, 
or  forced  into  unnatural  protrusion   by  the  forms  of  a  systematic  catalogue. 
The  minute  details  which  constitute  this  portion  of  Gesenius's  argument 
at^ainst  the  fragmentary  theory,  must  be  sought  in  his  own  work,  or  in  those 
which  have  transcribed   it.     jNIuch   more  important  and   conclusive  is  that 
part   of  his  argument  derived   from  the   unquestionable   fact,   that  certain 
threads  may  be  traced  running  through   the  entire  texture  of  these  Later 
Prophecies,  sometimes  dropj)ed  but  never  broken,  crossing  each  other,  and 
at  times  appearing  to  be  hopelessly  entangled,  but  all  distinguished,  and  yet 
all  united  in  the  dinouemcnt.     The  perpetual  recurrence  and  succession  of 
these  topics  is  correctly  represented  by  Gesenius  as  the  strongest  proof  of 
unity.     In  opposition    to  Augusti,   who  alleges  that  some  topics   are  more 
prominent  at  first  than   afterwards,  and   vice  versa,  Gesenius  replies  that 
pro<Tress  and  variety  arc  perfectly  consistent  with  the  strictest  unity  ;  that 
the  author's  ideal  situation  is  the  same  throughout  ;  and  that  all  the  topics 
which    become  more    prominent  as  he   proceeds,  had  at  least  been  lightly 
touched  before,  to  which   he  adds  another  list  of  verbal  parallels  between 
the  parts  described  as  most  dissimilar.    (See  Gesen.  Comm.  vol.  II.  p.  15.) 
This  reasoning  is   worthy   of  particular  attention,   on   account   of  its 
remarkable  affinity  with   that  by  which   the  defenders  of  the  old   opinions 
have  maintained  the  genuineness  of  disputed   places  in  the  Earlier  Prophe- 
cies, against  objections  of  Gesenius  himself,  precisely  analogous  to  those  of 
Augusti  which  he  here  refutes.     It  w^ould  greatly  contribute  to  the  correct 
decision  of  these  questions,  among  men  who  are  accustomed  to  the  weighing 
of  evidence  on  other  subjects,   if  their  attention  could  be   drawn  to  the 
facility  with  which  the  same   degree  and   kind   of  proof  are  admitted  or 
excluded  by  the  Higher  Critics,  according  to  the  end  at  which  they  happen 
to  be  aiming.    Perhaps  one  of  our  most  valuable  safeguards  against  German 
innovations  is  afforded  by  our  civil  institutions,  and  the  lifelong  Aimiliarity 
of  our  people,  either  through  the  press  or  by  personal  participation,  with  the 
public   administration  of  justice  and  the  practical  discrimination   between 
trull)  and  falsehood, — an  advantage  which  can   never  be  replaced  by  any 
method  or  amount  of  mental  cultivation. 

If  then  these  twenty-seven  chapters  are  confessedly  the  work  of  one 
man  and  indeed  a  continuous  discourse  on  one  great  subject,  and  if  a 
perfectly  uniform  tradition  has  attached  them  to  the  writings  of  Isaiah,  it 
remains  to  be  considered  whether  we  have  any  reason  to  deny  or  even  to 
dispute  the  fact  so  solemnly  attested.  All  the  presumptions  are  in  favour 
of  its  truth.  For  two  thousand  years,  at  least,  the  book  was  universally 
regarded  as  Isaiah's,  and  no  other  name  has  ever  been  connected  with  it 
even  by  mistake  or  accident.     It  is  just  such  a  book  as  the  necessities  of 


INTRODUCTION.  xix 

that  age  might  have  been  expected  to  call  forth.  Its  genuineness,  therefore, 
as  a  writing  of  Isaiah,  is  not  a  fact  requiring  demonstration  by  detailed  and 
special  proof,  but  one  attested  both  by  its  external  history  and  its  internal 
structure,  unless  positive  reasons  can  be  given  for  rejecting  a  conclusion 
which  appears  not  only  obvious  but  unavoidable. 

Among  the  objections  to  Isaiah  as  the  author  of  these  later  chapters, 
there  are  two  upon  which  the  whole  weight  of  the  argument  depends,  and 
to  which  all  otliers  may  be  reckoned  supplementary.  The  first  of  these 
has  reference  to  the  matter  of  the  prophecies,  the  second  to  their  form. 
The  latter  is  entirely  posterior  in  date,  and  has  been  growing  more  and 
more  prominent  as  the  necessity  of  something  to  sustain  the  first  and  main 
objection  has  been  forced  upon  its  advocates  by  the  resistance  which  it  has 
encountered.  This  chronological  relation  of  the  two  main  objections  is 
here  stated  not  only  as  a  curious  fact  of  literary  history,  but  also  as  directly 
bearing  on  the  issue  of  the  whole  dispute,  for  reasons  which  will  be 
explained  below. 

The  first  and  main  objection  to  the  doctrine  that  Isaiah  wrote  these 
chapters,  although  variously  stated  by  the  writers  who  have  urged  it, 
is  in  substance  this:  that  the  Prophet  every  where  alludes  to  the  circum- 
stances and  events  of  the  Babylonish  Exile  as  those  by  which  he  was  him- 
self surrounded  and  with  which  he  was  familiar,  from  which  his  conceptions 
and  his  images  are  borrowed,  out  of  which  he  looks  both  at  the  future  and 
the  past,  and  in  the  midst  of  which  he  must  as  a  necessary  consequence 
have  lived  and  written. 

This  objection  involves  two  assumptions,  both  which  must  be  true,  or 
it  is  wholly  without  force.  One  of  these,  viz.  that  the  Babylonish  exile 
is  the  subject  of  the  whole  book,  has  already  been  disproved ;  and  there 
is  strictly,  therefore,  no  need  of  considering  the  other.  But  in  order 
that  the  whole  strength  of  our  cause  may  be  disclosed,  it  will  be  best  to 
show  that  even  if  the  supposition  just  recited  were  correct,  the  other,  which 
is  equally  essential  to  the  truth  of  the  conclusion,  is  entirely  unfounded. 
This  is  the  asumption  that  the  local  and  historical  allusions  of  a  prophet 
must  be  always  those  of  his  own  times. 

Some  of  the  later  German  writers  try  to  rest  this  upon  general  grounds, 
by  alleging  that  such  is  the  invariable  practice  of  the  Hebrew  Prophets. 
But  as  the  book  in  question,  i.  e.  the  latter  portion  of  Isaiah,  is  admitted  by 
these  very  critics  to  deserve  the  highest  rank  among  prophetic  writings,  and 
to  have  exercised  a  more  extensive  influence  on  later  writers  and  opinions 
than  any  other,  it  is  unreasonable  to  appeal  to  a  usage  of  which  the  book 
itself  may  be  considered  as  a  normal  standard.  It  is  in  fact  a  begging  of 
the  question  to  deny  that  such  was  the  prophetic  usage,  when  that  denial 
really  involves  an  allegation  that  it  is  not  so  in  the  case  before  us. 


^x  INTRODUCTION. 

Another  answer  to  this  argument  from  usage  may  be  drawn  from  the 
analogy  of  other  kinds  of  composition,  in  which  all  grant  that  a  writer  may 
assume  a  "  Standpunkt  "  different  from  his  own,  and  personate  those  earlier 
and  later  than  himself.  The  classical  historians  do  this  when  they  put 
their  own  words  into  the  mouths  of  ancient  heroes  and  statesmen  ;  the 
dramatic  poets  when  they  carry  out  this  personation  in  detail  ;  and  still 
more  imaginalivc  writers,  when  they  throw  themselves  into  the  future,  and 
surround  themselves  by  circumstances  not  yet  in  existence.  If  it  be  natural 
for  poets  thus  to  speak  of  an  ideal  future,  why  may  not  prophets  of  a  real 
one?  The  only  answer  is,  because  they  cannot  knoiv  it;  and  to  this  point 
all  the  tortuous  evasions  of  the  more  reserved  neologists  as  surely  tend  as 
the  positive  averments  of  their  bolder  brethren.  In  every  form,  this  argu- 
ment af^ainst  the  genuineness  of  the  book  before  us  is  at  bottom  a  denial  of 
prophetic  inspiration  as  Impossible.  For  if  the  Prophet  could  foresee  the 
future,  his  allusions  only  prove  that  he  did  foresee  it;  and  the  positive 
assertion  that  the  prophets  never  do  so,  unless  it  be  founded  upon  this 
hypothesis,  is  just  as  foolish  as  it  would  be  to  assert  that  historians  and 
poets  never  do  the  like.  Unless  we  are  prepared  to  go  the  same  length, 
we  cannot  consistently  reject  these,  prophecies  as  spurious,  on  the  ground 
that  they  allude  to  events  long  posterior  to  the  writer's  times,  even  if  these 
allusions  were  as  numerous  and  explicit  as  we  have  seen  them  to  be  few 
when  clear,  and  in  all  other  cases  vague  and  doubtful. 

It  has  indeed  been  said,  in  confirmation  of  this  main  objection,  that  a 
real  foresight  would  extend  to  more  remote  as  w^ell  as  proximate  events, 
whereas  in  this  case  what  relates  to  the  period  of  the  Exile  is  minutely 
accurate,  while  all  beyond  is  either  blank  or  totally  erroneous;  in  proof  of 
which  we  are  referred  to  the  extravagant  descriptions  of  the  times  which 
should  succeed  the  Restoration. 

Both  parts  of  this  reasoning  rest  upon  a  false  assumption  as  to  the  space 
which  is  occupied  in  this  book  by  the  Babylonish  Exile.  If,  as  we  have 
seen  or  shall  see,  the  alleged  minute  descriptions  of  that  period  are  imaginary, 
and  if  the  alleged  extravagant  descriptions  of  its  close  relate  to  events  alto- 
gether different,  then  this  auxiliary  argument  must  share  the  fate  of  that 
which  it  is  brought  in  to  sustain.  To  this  same  category  appertains  the  special 
objection  founded  on  the  mention  of  Cyrus  by  name.  That  it  may  readily 
be  solved  by  an  application  of  the  same  principle,  will  be  shown  in  the 
exposition  of  the  passage  where  the  prophecy  occurs.  (See  below,  p. 
116  seq.) 

Another  erroneous  supposition,  which  has  tended  to  confirm  this  first 
objection  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Later  Prophecies,  is  that  they  must  have 
been  intended  solely  for  the  contemporaries  of  the  writer.  This  hypothesis 
is  closely  connected  with  the  denial  of  divine  inspiration.     The  idea  that 


INTRODUCTION.  xxi 

Isaiah  wrote  for  after  ages  is  of  course  a  ^' nichtige  Annahme'^  to  an  infidel. 
The  prophet's  work,  according  to  this  theory,  is  more  confined  than  that  of 
the  orator  or  poet.  These  may  be  said  to  labour  for  posterity  ;  but  his 
views  must  be  limited  to  those  about  him.  Ewald  alone  of  those  who  deny 
a  real  inspiration  (unless  Umbreit  may  be  likewise  so  described)  admits  a 
far-reaching  purpose  in  the  ancient  prophecies.  The  rest  appear  to  be 
agreed  that  nothing  could  be  more  absurd  than  consolation  under  sorrows 
which  were  not  to  be  experienced  for  ages.  Here  again  may  be  seen  the 
working  of  a  double  error,  that  of  making  the  Exile  the  great  subject  of  the 
book,  and  that  of  denying  that  it  could  have  been  foreseen  so  long  before- 
hand. Of  all  the  evils  afterwards  matured,  the  germ,  if  nothing  more, 
existed  in  Isaiah's  time.  And  even  if  it  did  not,  their  appearance  at  a  later 
date  might  well  have  been  predicted.  If  the  book,  as  we  have  reason  to 
believe,  was  intended  to  secure  a  succession  of  the  highest  ends, — the 
warning  tnd  instruction  of  the  Prophet's  own  contemporaries,  the  encour- 
agement and  consolation  of  the  pious  exiles,  the  reproof  and  conviction  of 
their  unbelieving  brethren,  the  engagement  of  the  Persians  and  especially 
of  Cyrus  in  the  service  of  Jehovah,  the  vindication  of  God's  dealings  with 
the  Jews  both  in  wrath  and  mercy,  and  a  due  preparation  of  the  minds  of 
true  believers  for  the  advent  of  Messiah, — then  such  objections  as  the  one 
last  cited  must  be  either  unmeaning  and  impertinent,  or  simply  equivalent 
to  a  denial  of  prophetic  inspiration. 

To  the  same  head  may  be  referred  those  objections  which  have  been 
derived  from  the  alleged  appearance  of  opinions  in  these  chapters  which  are 
known  to  have  arisen  at  a  later  period.  Besides  the  palpable  jpetitio 
principii  involved  in  such  an  argument,  so  far  as  it  assumes  that  to  be  late 
which  these  prophecies  if  genuine  demonstrate  to  be  ancient,  there  is  here 
again  a  confident  assumption  of  a  fact  as  certain  which  at  best  is  doubtful, 
and  in  my  opinion  utterly  unfounded,  namely,  that  the  strict  observance  of 
the  Sabbath  and  a  particular  regard  to  the  Levitical  priesthood  and  the 
sanctuary,  all  belong  to  a  species  of  Judaism  later  than  the  times  of  the 
genuine  Isaiah.  It  is  by  thus  assuming  their  own  paradoxical  conclusions 
as  unquestionable  facts,  that  the  Higher  Critics  of  the  German  school  have 
been  enabled  to  construct  some  of  their  most  successful  arguments. 

All  that  need  be  added  in  relation  to  the  arguments  against  the  genuine- 
ness of  these  chapters  drawn  from  their  matter  or  contents,  is  the  general 
observation  that  their  soundness  may  be  brought  to  the  test  by  inquiring 
whether  they  do  not  either  take  for  granted  something  as  belonging  to  the 
prophecy  which  is  not  found  there  by  a  simple  and  natural  interpretation, 
or  proceed  upon  some  general  false  principle,  such  as  the  denial  of  prophetic 
inspiration  as  impossible.  If  either  of  these  flaws  is  fatal  to  the  argument 
affected  by  it,  how  much  more  must  it  be  vitiated  by  the  co-existence  of  the 


xxii  INTRODUCTION. 

two,  which  is  the  case  in  many  minor  arguments  of  this  class,  and  empha- 
tically true  of  that  main  argument  to  which  they  are  auxiliary,  namely,  that 
Isaiah  cannot  be  the  writer  of  these  chapters  on  account  of  their  minute 
and  constant  reference  to  the  Babylonian  Exile.  The  alleged  fact  and  the 
inference  are  equally  unfounded. 

The  other  main  objection  to  the  genuineness  of  these  prophecies  is 
founded  not  upon  their  matter  but  their  manner,  or  in  other  w^ords,  their 
diction,  phraseology,  and  style,  which  are  said  to  be  entirely  unlike  those  of 
Isaiah.  The  minute  specifications  of  this  argument,  so  far  as  they  can  lay 
claim  even  to  a  passing  notice,  are  reserved  for  the  exposition  of  the 
passages  from  which  they  are  derived,  and  where  they  may  be  calmly 
viewed  in  their  original  connexion,  and  without  the  artificial  glare  produced 
by  an  immense  accumulation  of  detached  examples,  which  may  blind  the 
reader  by  their  number  and  variety,  without  affording  him  the  means  of 
judging  for  himself  how  many  may  at  best  be  dubious,  how  many  incon- 
clusive, and  how  many  more  entirely  irrelevant.  For  the  same  reason  no 
reliance  will  be  placed  upon  a  similar  display  of  minute  resemblances 
between  these  later  chapters  and  the  undisputed  writings  of  Isaiah,  although 
such  are  furnished  in  abundance  by  Kleinert,  Havernick,  and  others.  On 
the  value  of  such  proofs  and  the  soundness  of  the  inferences  drawn  from 
them,  a  reference  may  be  made  to  the  General  Introduction  (Earlier 
Prophecies,  pp.  xxix-xxxl).  At  the  same  time  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
counter-proofs  collected  by  these  writers  are  of  great  importance,  as  esta- 
blishing the  fact  of  their  existence  upon  both  sides  of  the  controversy,  and 
as  serving,  if  no  higher  purpose,  that  of  cancelling  such  proofs  when  urged 
against  the  genuineness  of  the  prophecies  by  writers  w4io  to  all  alleged  resem- 
blances reply  that  "  such  trifles  can  prove  nothing,"  or  that  the  style  has 
been  assimilated  by  a  later  hand.  For  this  reason  some  of  the  most  striking 
coincidences  of  expression  will  be  noticed  in  the  exposition,  as  well  as  the 
discrepancies  which  have  been  alleged  in  proof  of  later  origin. 

It  has  been  already  mentioned  that  this  argument  from  difference  of 
language  is  much  later  in  its  origin  than  that  derived  from  the  historical 
allusions.  This  is  a  significant  and  important  circumstance.  Had  the 
Higher  Criticism  set  out  from  some  palpable  diversity  of  diction  as  a  starting 
point,  and,  after  vainly  trying  to  identify  the  writers  upon  this  ground,  been 
compelled  to  own  a  corresponding  difference  of  matter  and  substantial  indi- 
cations of  a  later  age  than  that  of  Isaiah,  the  critical  process,  although  still 
inconclusive,  would  at  least  have  been  specious,  and  the  difficulty  of  defence 
proportionally  greater.  But  what  is  the  true  state  of  the  case  ?  Eichhorn 
and  Bertholdt,  though  disposed  to  assume  not  only  a  later  date  but  a 
plurality  of  authors,  could  find  nothing  to  sustain  this  assumption  in  the 
language  of  the  book  itself.     Augusti,  who  occupied  the  same  ground,  went 


INTRODUCTION.  xxiii 

so  far  as  to  account  for  the  traditional  incorporation  of  these  chapters  with 
Isaiah  from  their  perfect  imitation  of  his  style  and  manner.  Rosenmiiller 
dwells  altogether  on  the  first  objection  drawn  from  the  allusions  to  the 
Babylonish  Exile.  Even  Gesenius  admits  that  the  peculiarities  of  this  class 
are  less  numerous  than  might  have  been  expected,  but  succeeds  in  specifying 
some  which  had  been  overlooked.  From  that  time  the  discovery  (for  such 
it  may  well  be  termed)  of  these  philological  diversities  has  been  in  constant 
and  accelerated  progress.  Even  Maurer,  who  is  commonly  so  sparing  of 
details,  adds  to  the  black  list  several  particulars.  Hitzig  enlarges  it  still 
further,  but  unluckily  admits  that  some  of  the  expressions  which  he  notes 
are  not  to  be  found  either  in  the  earlier  or  later  books.  Ewald  as  usual 
supplies  the  want  of  detailed  proofs  by  authoritative  affirmations.  Umbreit 
considers  the  work  done  already,  and  declines  attempting  to  refute  Heng 
stenberg  and  Kleinerf  as  a  work  of  supererogation.  But  this  forbearance  is 
abundantly  made  good  by  the  zeal  of  Hendewerk  and  Knobel,  who  have 
carried  their  citation  of  neologisms  so  far,  that  little  now  seems  left  for 
their  successors  but  to  gather  the  remainder  of  the  book  by  way  of  glean- 
ings. 

But  although  the  general  course  of  this  peculiar  criticism  has  been 
onward,  there  have  not  been  wanting  certain  retrograde  movements  and 
obliquities  to  break  the  uniformity  of  progress.  Every  one  of  the  later 
writers  above  mentioned  rejects  some  of  the  examples  cited  by  his  prede- 
cessors as  irrelevant,  and  not  seldom  with  expressions  of  contempt.  But 
still  the  aggregate  has  grown,  and  by  a  further  application  of  the  same 
means  may  continue  growing,  until  the  materials  are  exhausted,  or  the 
Higher  Criticism  chooses  to  recede  from  this  extreme,  as  it  receded  five  and 
twenty  years  ago  from  that  of  Eichhorn  and  Augusti,  who  would  no  doubt 
have  looked  down  upon  the  notion  that  these  twenty-seven  chapters  were 
the  work  of  the  same  hand,  with  almost  as  much  contempt  as  on  the  old 
belief  that  this  hand  was  Isaiah's.  It  is  indeed  not  a  matter  of  conjecture 
but  of  history,  that  Eichhorn  in  the  last  edition  of  his  Introduction  finds  fault 
with  Gesenius  for  having  abandoned  the  plurality  of  authors,  and  evidently 
pities  him  as  one  who  from  excess  of  light  had  gone  back  into  darkness. 
By  a  similar  reaction  we  might  look  for  some  concession  in  favour  even  of 
Isaiah  as  the  writer  ;  but  although  such  an  expectation  need  not  be  discou- 
raged by  the  fear  of  any  scrupulous  regard  to  logic  or  consistency  among 
the  Higher  Critics,  it  is  rendered  hopeless  for  the  present  by  the  obvious 
necessity  which  it  involves  of  abandoning  their  fundamental  principle,  the 
impossibility  of  inspiration  or  prophetic  foresight.  For  to  this,  as  the  original, 
the  chief,  and  I  had  almost  said  the  only  ground  of  the  rejection  of  these 
chapters,  we  are  still  brought  back  fi'om  every  survey  of  the  arguments  by 
which  it  is  defended.     The  obvious  deduction   from  the  sketch  which  has 


xxiv  INTRODUCTION. 

been  given  of  the  progress  of  discovery  in  this  department  is,  that  the 
philological  objection  would  have  slept  for  ever,  had  it  not  become  absolutely 
necessary  to  secure  the  rejection  of  a  book,  which,  if  genuine,  carried  on  its 
face  the  clearest  proofs  of  inspiration. 

Be  it  remembered,  then,  that  the  rejection  of  these  chapters  was  not 
forced  upon  the  critics  by  a  palpable  diversity  of  style  and  diction,  but  that 
such  diversities  were  hunted  up,  laboriously  and  gradually  brought  to  light, 
in  order  to  justify  the  previous  rejection.  By  parity  of  reasoning  it  may  be 
foreseen  that  whoever  cannot  be  convinced  of  the  reality  of  inspiration,  will 
consider  these  detailed  proofs  of  later  date  conclusive  ;  while  the  reader  who 
knows  better,  or  at  least  has  no  misgivings  upon  that  point,  will  as  certainly 
pronounce  them  "  trifles  light  as  air."  If  we  gain  nothing  more  by  this 
investigation,  it  is  at  least  satisfactory  to  know  that  all  depends  upon  a  fore- 
gone conclusion,  and  that  as  to  faith  in  such  things  no  less  than  in  higher 
matters,  he  that  hath  receiveth,  and  from  him  that  hath  not  shall  be  taken 
even  that  which  he  hath. 

The  objection  drawn  from  other  more  indefinite  diversities  of  tone  and 
manner,  such  as  a  more  flowing  style  and  frequent  repetitions,  is  so  far  from 
having  any  force,  that  the  absence  of  these  differences  would  in  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case  be  well  adapted  to  excite  suspicion.  In  other  words, 
Isaiah  writing  at  a  later  period  of  life,  and  when  withdrawn  from  active 
labour,  with  his  view  directed  not  to  the  present  or  a  proximate  futurity, 
but  one  more  distant,  and  composing  not  a  series  of  detached  discourses, 
but  a  continuous  unbroken  prophecy,  not  only  may  but  must  have  difTered 
from  his  former  self  as  much  as  tliese  two  parts  of  the  collection  differ  from 
each  other.  This  antecedent  probability  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that 
similar  causes  have  produced  a  still  greater  difference  in  some  of  the  most 
celebrated  writers  ancient  and  modern,  who  exhibit  vastly  more  unlikeness 
to  themselves  in  different  parts  of  their  acknowledged  writings  than  the  most 
microscopic  criticism  has  been  able  to  detect  between  the  tone  or  manner 
of  Isaiah's  Earlier  and  Later  Prophecies. 

The  only  other  objections  to  the  genuineness  of  these  chapters  which 
appear  to  deserve  notice  are  those  derived  from  the  silence  or  the  testimony 
of  the  other  books.  That  these  are  not  likely  to  do  more  than  confirm  the 
conclusions  previously  reached  on  one  side  or  the  other,  may  be  gathered 
from  the  fact  that  they  are  urged  with  equal  confidence  on  both  sides  of  the 
(pjcstion.  Thus  Gesenius  argues  that  if  these  later  chapters  had  been  known 
to  .Jeremiah,  ho  would  have  appealed  to  them  in  self-vindication,  as  he  did 
to  Micah.  On  the  other  hand,  Hengstenberg  alleges  that  by  parity  of  reason- 
ing, Micah  4  :  10  could  not  have  been  extant,  or  the  enemies  of  Jeremiah 
would  have  quoted  it  against  him.  At  the  same  time,  he  maintains  that 
there  are  obvious  traces  of  these  chapters  in  the  writings  of  tiiat  prophet. 


INTRODUCTION.  xxv 

The  truth  is,  that  the  advocates  on  both  sides  first  determine  which  is  the 
older  writer,  and  then  explain  the  appearances  of  quotation  or  allusion 
accordingly.  The  same  is  true  of  similar  appearances  in  Nahum,  Zephaniah, 
and  Habakkuk  ;  which  Hitzig  cites  as  proofs  of  imitation  on  the  part  of  the 
Pseudo-isaiah,  while  Havernick  claims  them  all  as  proofs  of  his  priority.  It 
is  a  very  important  observation  of  the  last  mentioned  writer,  that  the  influ- 
ence of  Isaiah  on  these  later  prophets  is  not  to  be  estimated  by  detached 
expressions,  but  by  more  pervading  indications,  which  he  thinks  are  clearly 
perceptible  throughout  the  writings  both  of  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel. 

As  samples  of  the  arguments  in  favour  of  their  genuineness  drawn  from 
the  same  quarter,  may  be  cited  Zech.  7  :  4—12,  where  "  the  former  pro- 
phets,'' who  cried  in  the  name  of  Jehovah  to  the  people  "  when  Jerusalem 
was  inhabited  and  in  prosperity,"  must  include  the  writer  of  these  chapters. 
In  reference  to. all  these  minor  arguments,  however,  it  will  be  felt  by  every 
reader  that  they  have  no  practical  effect,  except  to  corroborate  the  main 
ones  which  have  been  discussed,  and  with  which  they  must  stand  or  fall. 

Enough  has  now  been  said  to  show  that  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for 
rejecting  the  traditional  ascription  of  these  chapters  to  Isaiah.  Let  us  now 
turn  the  tables,  and  inquire  what  objections  lie  against  the  contrary  hypo- 
thesis. These  objections  may  be  all  reduced  to  this,  that  the  oblivion  of 
the  author's  name  and  history  is  more  inexplicable,  not  to  say  incredible, 
than  any  thing  about  the  other  doctrine  can  be  to  a  believer  in  prophetic 
inspiration.  This  is  a  difficulty  which  no  ingenuity  has  ever  yet  been  able 
to  surmount.  That  a  writer  confessedly  of  the  highest  genius,  living  at  one 
of  the  most  critical  junctures  in  the  history  of  Israel,  when  the  word  of  God 
began  to  be  precious  and  prophetic  inspiration  rare,  should  have  produced 
such  a  series  of  prophecies  as  this,  with  such  effects  upon  the  exiles  and 
even  upon  Cyrus  as  tradition  ascribes  to  them,  and  then  have  left  them  to 
the  admiration  of  all  future  ages,  without  so  much  as  a  trace  of  his  own  per- 
sonality about  them,  is  a  phenomenon  of  literary  history  compared  with 
which  the  mystery  of  Junius  is  as  nothing.  It  would  be  so  even  if  we  had 
no  remains  of  the  same  period  to  compare  with  these  ;  but  how  immensely 
is  the  improbability  enhanced  by  the  fact  that  the  other  prophets  of  the 
exile,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  are  not  only  well  known  and 
easily  identified,  but  minutely  accurate  in  the  chronological  specifications 
of  their  prophecies,  a  feature  absolutely  wanting  in  these  chapters,  though 
alleged  to  be  the  work  of  a  contemporary  writer.  It  is  in  vain  to  say,  with 
Ewald,  that  the  suppression  of  the  author's  name  and  the  oblivion  of  his 
person  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  times, 
when  the  other  writings  of  those  times  still  extant  not  only  fail  to  prove 
what  is  alleged,  but  prove  the  very  opposite. 

Even  this,  however,  though  sufficiently  incredible,  is  still  not  all  we  are 


XX  vi  INTRODUCTION. 

required  (o  believe  ;  for  we  must  also  grant  that  these  anonymous  though 
admirable  writings  were  attached  to  those  of  a  prophet  who  flourished  in 
the  preceding  century,  and  with  whose  productions  they  are  said  to  have 
scarcely  any  thing  in  common,  and  that  this  mysterious  combination  took 
place  so  early  as  to  lie  beyond  the  oldest  tradition  of  the  Hebrew  Canon, 
and  was  so  blindly  acquiesced  in  from  the  first  that  not  the  faintest  intima- 
tion of  another  author  or  another  origin  was  ever  heard  of  for  two  thousand 
years,  when  the  Higher  Criticism  first  discovered  that  the  prophecies  in 
question  were  the  work  of  many  authors,  and  then  (no  less  infallibly)  that 
tliey  were  really  the  work  of  only  one,  but  (still  infallibly)  that  this  one 
could  not  be  Isaiah  ! 

It  is  in  vain  that  the  Germans  have  endeavoured  to  evade  this  fatal 
obstacle  by  childish  suppositions  about  big  rolls  and  little  rolls,  or  by  citing 
cases  of  concealment  or  oblivion  wholly  dissimilar  and  far  less  wonderful,  or 
by  negligently  saying  that  we  are  not  bound  to  account  for  the  fact,  provided 
we  can  prove  it ;  as  if  the  proof  were  not  dependent  in  a  great  degree  upon 
the  possibility  of  accounting  for  it,  or  as  if  the  only  business  of  the  Higher 
Critics  were  to  tie  knots  which  neither  we  nor  they  can  untie.  The  ques- 
tion here  at  issue  only  needs  to  be  presented  to  the  common  sense  of  man- 
kind, and  especially  of  those  who  are  accustomed  to  weigh  evidence  in  real 
life,  to  be  immediately  disposed  of  by  the  prompt  decision  that  the  modern 
hypothesis  is  utterly  incredible,  and  that  nothing  could  make  it  appear 
otherwise  to  any  man  acquainted  with  the  subject,  but  an  irresistible  desire 
to  destroy  a  signal  proof  and  instance  of  prophetic  inspiration. 

To  this  intrinsic  want  of  credibility  now  add,  as  positive  considerations, 
the  ancient  and  uniform  tradition  of  the  Jews  ;  the  testimony  of  the  general 
title,  which  must  be  regarded  as  inclusive  of  these  chapters,  in  the  absence 
of  all  countervailing  evidence  ;  the  influence  exerted  by  these  prophecies, 
according  to  Josephus,  on  Cyrus  and  the  Restoration,  implying  their  antiquity 
and  previous  notoriety  ;  the  recognition  of  the  whole  book  as  Isaiah's  by 
the  Son  of  Sirach  (48  :  22-25)  ;  and  the  indiscriminate  citation  of  its  differ- 
ent parts  in  the  New  Testament. 

Again,  to  these  external  testimonies  may  be  added,  as  internal  proofs, 
the  writer's  constant  representation  of  himself  as  living  before  some  of  the 
events  which  he  describes,  and  as  knowing  them  by  inspiration  ;  his  repeated 
claim  to  have  predicted  Cyrus  and  the  Restoration,  long  before  the  first 
appearances  of  those  events  ;  the  obvious  allusions  to  Jerusalem  and  Judah 
as  the  writer's  home,  to  the  temple  and  the  ritual  as  still  subsisting,  and  to 
idolatry  as  practised  by  the  people,  which  the  Higher  Critics  can  evade 
only  by  asserting  that  the  Jews  did  not  cease  to  be  idolaters  in  Babylon  ; 
the  historical  allusions  to  the  state  of  the  world  with  which  the  writer  was 
familiar,  precisely  similar  to  those  in  the  genuine  Isaiah  ;  the  very  structure 


INTRODUCTION.  xxvii 

of  the  prophecies  relating  to  the  exile,  clear  enough  to  be  distinctly  verified, 
and  yet  not  so  minute  as  a  contemporary  writer  must  have  made  them  ; 
and  lastly,  the  identity  of  Messiah  here  described  with  the  Messiah  of  the 
undisputed  prophecies. 

It  is  perhaps  impossible  for  any  writer  on  this  subject  to  do  full  justice 
to  the  adverse  arguments,  especially  to  those  of  a  minor  and  auxiliary  cha- 
racter. This  is  the  less  to  be  regretted,  because  every  fresh  discussion  of 
the  subject  makes  it  more  and  more  apparent  that  the  question  really  at 
issue  is  not  whether  either  party  has  established  its  position  by  direct  proofs, 
but  whether  it  has  furnished  the  other  with  sufficient  reasons  for  abandoning 
its  own.  If  the  Higher  Critics  can  find  nothing  in  the  arguments  alleged 
against  them  to  make  inspiration  and  prophetic  foresight  credible,  they  have 
certainly  done  still  less  to  drive  us  from  our  position,  that  Isaiah's  having 
written  this  book  is  unspeakably  more  probable  than  any  other  supposition. 

Having  now  traced  the  history  of  the  criticism  of  these  prophecies,  it  may 
not  be  amiss  to  look  at  that  of  their  interpretation,  not  through  the  medium 
of  minute  chronological  or  bibliographical  details,  but  by  exhibiting  the 
several  theories  or  schools  of  exegesis  which,  at  different  times  or  at  the 
same  time,  have  exerted  an  important  influence  on  the  interpretation  of 
these  chapters. 

The  first  of  these  proceeds  upon  the  supposition  that  these  Later  Pro- 
phecies have  reference  throughout  to  the  New  Dispensation  and  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  including  its  whole  history,  with  more  or  less  distinctness,  from 
the  advent  of  Christ  to  the  end  of  the  world.  This  is  a  favourite  doctrine 
of  the  Fathers  who  have  written  on  Isaiah,  to  wit,  Cyril,  Eusebius,  Jerome, 
and  of  some  modern  writers,  among  whom  the  most  distinguished  is  Coc- 
ceius.  The  difference  between  those  who  maintam  it  respects  chiefly  the 
degree  of  fulness  and  consistency  with  which  they  carry  out  their  general 
idea,  some  admitting  much  more  frequently  than  others  the  occasional 
occurrence  of  predictions  which  were  verified  before  the  Advent. 

This  system  of  prophetic  exegesis  is  founded,  to  a  great  extent,  on  the 
assumption  that  the  Book  of  Revelation  was  designed  to  be  a  key  to  the 
meaning  of  the  ancient  prophecies,  and  not  a  series  of  new  predictions,  often 
more  enigmatical  than  any  of  the  others.  Because  Babylon  is  there  named 
as  a  power  still  existing  and  still  threatened  with  destruction,  it  was  inferred 
that  the  name  must  be  symbolical  in  Isaiah  likewise,  or  at  least  that  it 
might  be  so  explained  at  the  interpreter's  discretion.  This  opened  an 
illimitable  field  of  conjecture  and  invention,  each  interpreter  pursuing  his  own 
method  of  determining  the  corresponding  facts  in  Church  History,  without 
any  settled  rule  to  guide  or  to  control  him. 

The  extravagant  conclusions  often  reached  in  this  way,  and  the  general 
uncertainty  imparted  to  the  whole  work  of  interpretation,  together  with  the 


xxvili  INTRODUCTION. 

seeming  incoiTCCtnessof  ilio  principle  assumed  in  regard  to  the  Apocalypse,  led 
many,  and  particularly  those  in  whom  the  understanding  strongly  predominated 
over  the  imagination,  to  reject  this  theory  in  favour  of  its  opposite,  viz.  that 
the  main  subject  of  these  chapters  must  be  sought  as  far  as  possible  before 
the  Advent,  and  as  a  necessary  consequence  either  in  the  period  of  the 
Babylonian  Exile,  or  in  that  of  the  Syrian  domination,  with  the  periods  of 
reaction  which  succeeded  them  respectively,  since  it  was  only  these  that 
furnished  events  of  sufficient  magnitude  to  be  the  subject  of  such  grand 
predictions. 

It  is  evident  at  once  that  both  these  theories  involve  some  truth,  and 
that  their  application  must  evolve  the  true  sense  of  some  passages.  The 
fatal  vice  of  both  is  their  exclusiveness.  The  unbiassed  reader  of  Isaiah 
can  no  more  be  persuaded  that  he  never  speaks  of  the  New  Dispensation 
than  that  he  never  speaks  of  the  Old.  After  both  systems  had  been  pushed 
to  an  extreme,  it  was  found  necessary  to  devise  some  method  of  conciliating 
and  combining  them. 

The  first  and  rudest  means  employed  for  this  end,  even  by  some  of  the 
most  strenuous  adherents  of  the  two  extreme  hypotheses,  when  forced  at 
times  to  grant  themselves  a  dispensation  from  the  rigorous  enforcement  of 
their  own  rule,  was  to  assume  arbitrarily  a  change  of  subject  when  it 
appeared  necessary,  and  to  make  the  Prophet  skip  from  Babylon  to  Rome, 
and  from  the  Maccabees  to  Doomsday,  as  they  found  convenient.  This 
arbitrary  mixture  of  the  theories  is  often  perpetrated  by  Cocceius,  and  occa- 
sionally even  by  Vitringa ;  neither  of  whom  seems  to  think  it  necessary  to 
subject  the  application  of  the  prophecies  to  any  general  principle,  or  to 
account  for  it  in  any  other  way  than  by  alleging  that  it  suits  the  text  and 
context. 

A  more  artificial  method  of  combining  both  hypotheses  is  that  of 
Grotius,  whose  interpretation  of  these  prophecies  appears  to  be  governed  by 
two  maxims  :  first,  that  they  all  relate  to  subjects  and  events  before  the 
time  of  Christ ;  and  secondly,  that  these  are  often  types  of  something  after- 
wards developed.  What  renders  this  kind  of  interpretation  unsatisfactory, 
is  the  feeling  which  it  seldom  fails  to  generate,  that  the  text  is  made  to  mean 
too  much,  or  rather  too  many  things  ;  that  if  one  of  the  senses  really  belongs 
to  it,  the  other  is  superfluous;  but  above  all,  that  the  nexus  of  the  two  is 
insufficient ;  that  although  a  gradual  or  even  a  repeated  execution  of  a 
promise  or  a  threatening  is  conceivable,  it  seems  unreasonable  that  the  inter- 
preter should  have  the  discretionary  right  of  saying  that  the  same  passage 
means  one  thing  in  ancient  times  and  an  altogether  different  thing  in  modern 
times — that  the  same  words,  for  example,  are  directly  descriptive  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  and  Antichrist,  of  Judas  Maccabaeus  and  Gustavus 
Adolphus. 


INTRODUCTION.  xxix 

A  third  mode  of  reconciling  these  two  theories  of  interpretation  is  the 
one  pursued  by  Lowth,  and  still  more  successfully  by  Hengstenberg.  It  rests 
upon  the  supposition  that  the  nearer  and  the  more  remote  realization  of  the 
same  prophetic  picture  might  be  presented  to  the  Prophet  simultaneously  or 
in  immediate  succession  ;  so  that,  for  example,  the  deliverance  from  Babylon 
by  Cyrus  insensibly  merges  into  a  greater  deliverance  from  sin  and  ruin  by 
Christ.  The  principle  assumed  in  this  ingenious  doctrine  is  as  just  as  it  is 
beautiful,  and  of  the  highest  practical  importance  in  interpretation.  The 
only  objection  to  its  general  application  in  the  case  before  us  is,  that  it 
concedes  the  constant  reference  to  Babylon  throughout  this  book,  and  only 
seeks  to  reconcile  this  fundamental  fact  with  the  wider  application  of  the 
Prophecies. 

It  still  remains  to  be  considered,  (herefore,  whether  any  general  hypo- 
thesis or  scheme  can  be  constructed,  which,  without  giving  undue  promi- 
nence to  any  of  the  topics  introduced,  without  restricting  general  expressions 
to  specific  objects,  without  assuming  harsh  transitions,  needless  double  senses, 
or  imaginary  typical  relations,  shall  do  justice  to  the  unity  and  homoge- 
neousness  of  the  composition,  and  satisfactorily  reconcile  the  largeness  and 
variety  of  its  design  with  the  particular  allusions  and  predictions  which  can 
only  be  eliminated  from  it  by  a  forced  and  artificial  exegesis. 

Such  a  hypothesis  is  that  propounded  at  the  beginning  of  this  Intro- 
duction, and  assumed  as  the  basis  of  the  following  Exposition.  It  supposes 
the  main  subject  of  these  Prophecies,  or  rather  of  this  Prophecy,  to  be  the 
Church  or  people  of  God,  considered  in  its  members  and  its  head,  in  its 
design,  its  origin,  its  progress,  its  vicissitudes,  its  consummation,  in  its 
various  relations  to  God  and  to  the  world,  both  as  a  field  of  battle  and  a 
field  of  labour,  an  enemy's  country  to  be  conquered  and  an  inheritance  to 
be  secured. 

Within  the  limits  of  this  general  description  it  is  easy  to  distinguish,  as 
alternate  objects  of  prophetic  vision,  the  two  great  phases  of  the  Church  on 
earth,  its  state  of  bondage  and  its  state  of  freedom,  its  ceremonial  and  its 
spiritual  aspect — in  a  word,  what  we  usually  call  the  Old  and  New  Economy 
or  Dispensation.  Both  are  continually  set  before  us,  but  with  this  observ- 
able distinction  in  the  mode  of  presentation,  that  the  first  great  period  is 
described  by  individual  specific  strokes,  the  second  by  its  outlines  as  a  defi- 
nite yet  undivided  whole.  To  the  great  turning-point  between  the  two 
dispensations  the  prophetic  view  appears  to  reach  with  clear  discrimination 
of  the  intervening  objects,  but  beyond  that  to  take  all  in  at  a  sinHe  o-lance. 
Within  the  boundaries  first  mentioned  the  eye  passes  with  a  varied  uniformity 
from  one  salient  point  to  another;  but  beyond  them  it  contemplates  the  end 
and  the  beginning,  not  as  distinct  pictures,  but  as  necessary  elements  of 
one.     This  difference  might  naturally  be  expected  in  a  Prophecy  belonging 


XXX  INTRODUCTION. 

10  the  Okl  Dispensation,  while  in  one  belonging  to  the  New  we  should  as 
naturally  look  for  the  same  definiteness  and  minuteness  as  the  older  prophets 
used  in  ilirir  descriptions  of  the  older  times  ;  and  this  condition  is  completely 
answered  by  the  Book  of  Revelation. 

If  this  be  so,  it  throws  a  new  light  on  the  more  specific  Prophecies  of 
this  part  of  Isaiah  (such  as  those  relating  to  the  Babylonish  Exile)  ;  which 
are  then  to  be  regarded,  not  as  the  main  subject  of  the  Prophecy,  but  only 
as  prominent  figures  in  the  great  prophetic  picture,  some  of  which  were  to 
the  Prophet's  eye  already  past,  and  some  still  future.  In  this  respect  the 
Prophecy  is  perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  History  of  Israel,  in  which  the 
Exile  and  the  Restoration  stand  conspicuously  forth  as  one  of  the  great 
critical  conjunctures  which  at  distant  intervals  prepared  the  way  for  the 
removal  of  the  ancient  system,  and  }^t  secured  its  continued  operation  till 
the  time  of  that  removal  should  arrive.  How  far  the  same  thing  may  be  said 
of  other  periods  which  occupy  a  like  place  in  the  history  of  the  Jews,  such 
as  the  period  of  the  Maccabees  or  Hasmonean  Princes,  is  a  question  rendered 
doubtful  by  the  silence  of  the  Prophecy  itself,  and  by  the  absence  of  any 
indications  which  are  absolutely  unambiguous.  The  specific  reference  of 
certain  passages  to  this  important  epoch  both  by  Grotius  and  Vitringa,  has 
no  antecedent  probability  against  it ;  but  we  cannot  with  the  same  unhesi- 
tating confidence  assert  such  an  allusion  as  we  can  in  the  case  of  Babylon 
and  Cyrus,  which  are  mentioned  so  expressly  and  repeatedly.  It  may  be 
that  historical  discovery,  the  march  of  which  has  been  so  rapid  in  our  own 
day,  will  enable  us,  or  those  who  shall  come  after  us,  to  set  this  question 
finally  at  rest.  In  the  meantime  it  is  safest  to  content  ourselves  with  care- 
fully distinguishing  between  the  old  and  new  economy  as  represented  on 
the  Prophet's  canvass,  without  attempting  to  determine  by  conjecture  what 
particular  events  are  predicted  even  in  the  former,  any  further  than  we 
have  the  certain  guidance  of  the  Prophecy  itself. 

As  to  a  similar  attempt  in  reference  to  the  New  Dispensation,  it  is 
wholly  inconsistent  with  the  view  which  we  have  taken  of  the  structure  of 
these  Prophecies,  and  which  regards  them  not  as  particular  descriptions  of 
this  or  that  event  in  later  times,  but  as  a  general  description  of  the  Church 
in  its  emancipated  state,  or  of  the  Reign  of  tlie  Messiah,  not  at  one  time  or 
another,  but  throughout  its  whole  course,  so  that  the  faint  light  of  the  dawn 
is  blended  with  the  glow  of  sunset  and  the  blaze  of  noon.  The  form  under 
which  the  Reign  of  Christ  is  here  presented  to  and  by  the  Prophet  is  that 
of  a  glorious  emancipation  from  the  bondage  and  the  darkness  of  the  old 
economy,  in  representing  which  he  naturally  dwells  with  more  minuteness 
upon  that  part  of  the  picture  which  is  nearest  to  himself,  while  the  rest  is 
bathed  in  a  flood  of  ligiit  ;  to  penetrate  beyond  which,  or  to  discriminate 
the  objects  hid   beneath  its  dazzling  veil,  formed  no  part  of  this  Prophet's 


INTRODUCTION.  xxxi 

mission,  but  was  reserved  for  ihe  prophetic  revelations  of  tlie  New  Testa- 
ment. 

It  is  not  however  merely  to  the  contrast  of  the  tv/o  dispensations  that 
the  Prophet's  eye  is  here  directed.  It  would  indeed  have  been  impossible 
to  bring  this  contrast  clearly  into  view  without  a  prominent  exhibition  of  the 
great  event  by  which  the  transition  was  effected,  and  of  the  great  person 
who  effected  it.  That  person  is  the  Servant  of  Jehovah,  elsewhere  spoken 
of  as  his  Anointed  or  Messiah,  and  both  here  and  elsewhere  represented  as 
combining  the  prophetic,  regal,  and  sacerdotal  characters  suggested  by  that 
title.  The  specific  relation  which  he  here  sustains  to  the  Israel  of  God,  is 
that  of  the  Head  to  a  living  Body  ;  so  that  in  many  cases  what  is  said  of 
him  appears  to  be  true  wholly  or  in  part  of  them,  as  forming  one  complex 
person,  an  idea  perfectly  accordant  with  the  doctrines  and  the  images  of  the 
New  Testament.  It  appears  to  have  been  first  clearly  stated  in  the  dictum 
of  an  ancient  writer  quoted  by  Augustin  :  "  De  Christo  et  Corpore  ejus 
Ecclesia  tanquam  de  una  persona  in  Scriptura  saepius  mentionem  fieri,  cui 
quaedam  tribuuntur  quae  tantum  in  Caput,  quaedam  quae  tantum  in  Corpus 
competunt,  quaedam  vero  in  utrumque,"  There  is  nothing  in  these  Pro- 
phecies more  striking  or  peculiar  than  the  sublime  position  occupied  by 
this  colossal  figure,  standing  between  the  Church  of  the  Old  and  that  of  the 
New  Testament,  as  a  mediator,  an  interpreter,  a  bond  of  union,  and  a  com- 
mon head. 

If  this  be  a  correct  view  of  the  structure  of  these  prophecies,  nothing 
can  be  more  erroneous  or  unfriendly  to  correct  interpretation,  than  the 
idea,  which  appears  to  form  the  basis  of  some  expositions,  that  the  primary 
object  in  the  Prophet's  view  is  Israel  as  a  race  or  nation,  and  that  its 
spiritual  or  ecclesiastical  relations  are  entirely  adventitious  and  subordi- 
nate. The  natural  result  of  this  erroneous  supposition  is  a  constant  dis- 
position to  give  every  thing  a  national  and  local  sense.  This  is  especially 
the  case  with  respect  to  the  names  so  frequently  occurring,  Zion,  Jeru- 
salem, and  Judah  ;  all  which,  according  to  this  view  of  the  matter,  must 
be  understood,  v/herever  it  is  possible,  as  meaning  nothing  more  than  the 
liill,  the  city,  and  the  land,  which  they  originally  designate.  This  error 
has  even  been  pushed  by  some  to  the  irrational  extreme  of  making  Israel 
as  a  race  the  object  of  the  promises,  after  their  entire  separation  from  the 
church  and  their  reduction  for  the  time  being  to  the  same  position  with  the 
sons  of  Ishmael  and  of  Esau.  That  this  view  should  be  taken  by  the 
modern  Jews,  in  vindication  of  their  own  continued  unbelief,  is  not  so  strange 
as  its  adoption  by  some  Christian  writers,  even  in  direct  opposition  to  their 
own  interpretation  of  former  prophecies,  almost  identical  in  form  and  sub- 
stance. The,  specifications  of  this  general  charge  will  be  fully  given  in  the 
exposition. 


xxxii  INTRODUCTION. 

The  claim  of  this  mode  of  interpretation  to  the  praise  of  strictness  and 
exactness  is  a  false  one,  if  the  Israel  of  prophecy  is  not  the  nation  as  such 
merely,  but  the  nation  as  the  temporary  frame-work  of  the  church,  and  if 
the  promises  addressed  to  it,  in  forms  derived  from  this  transitory  state,  were 
nevertheless  meant  to  be  perpetual,  and  must  be  therefore  independent  of 
all  temporary  local  restrictions.  The  true  sense  of  the  prophecies  in  this 
respect  cannot  be  more  strongly  or  explicitly  set  forth  than  in  the  words  of 
the  Apostle,  when  he  says  that  "God  hath  not  cast  away  his  people  which 
he  foreknew  ;" — "  Israel  hath  not  obtained  that  which  he  seeketh  for,  but 
the  election  hath  obtained  it  and  the  rest  were  blinded  ;"  ''  not  as  though 
the  word  of  God  hath  taken  none  effect,  for  they  are  not  all  Israel  which 
are  of  Israel." 

One  effect  of  the  correct  view  of  this  matter  is  to  do  away  with  vague- 
ness and  uncertainty  or  random  license  in  the  explanation  of  particular 
predictions.  This  requires  to  be  more  distinctly  stated,  as  at  first  view  the 
effect  may  seem  to  be  directly  opposite.  It  was  a  favourite  maxim  with  an 
old  school  of  interpreters,  of  whom  Vitringa  may  be  taken  as  the  type  and 
representative,  that  the  prophecies  should  be  explained  to  mean  as  much  as 
possible,  because  the  word  of  God  must  of  course  be  more  significant  and 
pregnant  than  the  word  of  man.  Without  disputing  the  correctness  of  the 
reason  thus  assumed,  it  may  be  granted  that  the  rule  itself  is  good  or  bad, 
in  theory  and  practice,  according  to  the  sense'  in  which  it  is  received  and 
applied.  By  the  interpreters  in  question  it  was  practically  made  to  mean, 
that  the  dignity  of  prophecy  required  the  utmost  possible  particularity  of 
application  to  specific  points  of  history,  and  the  greatest  possible  number 
and  variety  of  such  applications.  The  sincerity  with  which  the  rule  was 
recognised  and  acted  on,  in  this  sense,  is  apparent  from  the  zeal  with  which 
Vitringa  seeks  minute  historical  allusions  under  the  most  general  expressions, 
and  the  zest  with  which  he  piles  up  mystical  senses,  as  he  calls  them,  on 
the  top  of  literal  ones,  plainly  regarding  the  assumption  of  so  many  senses 
not  as  a  necessary  evil,  but  as  a  desirable  advantage. 

The  evils  of  this  method  are,  however,  more  apparent  when  the  senses 
are  less  numerous,  and  the  whole  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  is  sought  in 
some  one  juncture ;  because  then  all  other  applications  are  excluded,  whereas 
the  more  they  arc  diversified  the  more  chance  is  allowed  the  reader  of 
discovering  the  true  generic  import  of  the  passage.  For  example,  when 
Vitringa  makes  the  Edom  of  these  prophecies  denote  the  Roman  Empire, 
and  also  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  also  the  unbelieving  Jews,  he  widens 
the  scope  of  his  interpretation  so  far  as  unwittingly  to  put  the  reader  on  the 
true  scent  of  a  comprehensive  threatening  against  the  inveterate  enemies  of 
God  and  of  his  people,  among  whom  those  specified  are  only  comprehended, 
if  at  all,  as  individual  examples.     But  when,  on  the  other  hand,  he  asserts 


INTRODUCTION.  xxxiii 

» 
that  a  particular  prophecy  received  its  whole  fulfilment  In  the  decline  of 
Protestant  theology  and  piety  after  the  Reformation,  he  not  only  puts  a 
meaning  on  the  passage  which  no  one  else  can  see  there  without  his  assist- 
ance, but  excludes  all  other  applications  as  irrelevant.  In  some  interpreters 
belonging  to  the  same  school,  but  inferior  to  Vitringa  both  in  learning  and 
judgment,  this  mode  of  exposition  is  connected  with  a  false  view  of  pro- 
phecy as  mere  prediction,  and  as  intended  solely  to  illustrate  the  divine 
omniscience. 

Now  in  aiming  to  make  every  thing  specific  and  precise,  this  kind  of 
exposition  renders  all  uncertain  and   indefinite,    by  leaving  the  particular 
events  foretold  to. the  discretion  or  caprice  of  the  interpreter.     Wliere  the 
event  is  expressly  described  in  the  prophecy  itself,  as  the  conquests  of  Cyrus 
are  in  ch.  44  and  45,  there  can  be  no  question  ;    it  is  only  where  a  strict 
sense  is  to  be  imposed  upon  indefinite  expressions,  that  this  evil  fruit  appears. 
The  perfect  license  of  conjecture  thus  afforded  may  be  seen  by  comparing 
two  interpreters  of  this  class,  and  observing  with  what  confidence  the  most 
incompatible  opinions  are  maintained,  neither  of  which  would  be  suggested 
by  the  language  of  the  prophecy  itself  to  any  other  reader.      What  is  thus 
dependent  upon    individual  invention,  taste,  or  fancy,  must  be  uncertain, 
not  only  till  it  is  discovered,  but  for  ever;  since  the  next  interpreter  may 
have  a  still  more  felicitous  conjecture,  or  a  still  more  ingenious  combination, 
to  supplant  the  old  one.     It  is  thus  that  in  aiming  at  an  unattainable  preci- 
sion   these   interpreters   have  brought  upon  themselves  the  very  reproach 
which  they  were  most  solicitous  to  shun,  that  of  vagueness  and  uncertainty. 
If,  instead  of  this,  we  let  the  Prophet  say  precisely  what  his  words  most 
naturally  mean,  expounded   by  the  ordinary  laws  of  human  language  and  a 
due  regard  to  the  immediate  context  and  to  general  usage,  without  attempt- 
ing to  make  that  specific  which  the  author  has  made  general,  any  more  than 
to  make  general  what  he   has   made  specific,  we  shall  not  only  shun  the 
inconveniences  described,  but  facilitate  the  use  and  application  of  these  pro- 
phecies by  modern  readers.     Christian   interpreters,  as  we  have  seen,  have 
been  so  unwilling  to  renounce  their  interest,  and  that  of  the  Church  gene- 
rally, in   these  ancient  promises,  encouragements,  and  warnings,  that  they 
have  chosen  rather  to  secure  them  by  the  cumbrous  machinery  of  allegory, 
anagoge,  and  accommodation.      But  if  the  same  end  may  be  gained  without 
resorting  to  such  means, — if  instead  of  being  told  to  derive  consolation  from 
God's  [)romi5es  addressed  to  the  Maccabees  or  to  the  Jews  in  exile,  because 
he  will   be  equally  gracious  to  ourselves,  we  are  permitted  to  regard  a   vast 
proportion  of  those  promises  as  promises  to  the  Church,  and  the  ancient 
deliverances  of  the  chosen  people  as  mere  samples  or  instalments  of  their 
ultimate  fiilfilment, — such  a  change  in   the  relative   position  of  tin;  parties 
to  these  covenant  transactions,  without  any  change  in   the  matter  of  the 

c 


xxxiv  INTRODUCTION. 

covenant  itself,  may  perhaps  not  unreasonably  be  described  as  recom- 
mending the  method  of  interpretation  which  alone  can  make  it  possible. 
An  exegesis  marked  by  these  results  is  the  genuine  and  only  realization 
of  the  old  idea,  in  its  best  sense,  that  the  word  of  God  must  mean  as  much 
as  possible.  All  this,  however,  has  respect  to  questions  which  can  only  be 
determined  by  the  slow  but  sure  lest  of  a  thorough  and  detailed  inter- 
pretation. 

Before  proceeding  to  apply  this  test,  it  will  be  necessary  to  consider 
briefly  the  arrangement  and  division  of  these  Later  Prophecies.  This  is  not 
a  question  of  mere  taste,  or  even  of  convenience,  but  one  which  may  mate- 
rially influence  the  exposition.  Here  again  a  brief  historical  statement  may 
be  useful,  and  not  wholly  without  interest. 

The  older  writei's  on  Isaiah,  being  free  from  the  influence  of  any  arti- 
ficial theory,  and  taking  the  book  just  as  they  found  it,  treated  these  chapters 
as  a  continuous  discourse,  with  little  regard  to  the  usual  divisions  of  the  text, 
except  as  mere  facilities  for  reference. 

Vitringa's  fondness  for  exact  and  even  formal  method,  led  him  to  attempt 
a  systematic  distribution  of  these  chapters,  similar  to  that  which  he  had 
given  of  the  Earlier  Prophecies.  He  accordingly  throws  them  into  condones 
or  discourses,  and  divides  these  into  sectiones,  often  coinciding  with  the 
chapters,  but  sometimes  either  longer  or  shorter.  These  subdivisions  he 
provides  with  his  favourite  apparatus  of  analysis,  anacrisis,  elc.  under  which 
heads  he  appropriates  distinct  paragraphs  to  the  description  of  the  scope, 
design,  occasion,  argument,  etc.  of  each  section.  The  inappropriateness  of 
this  method,  cumbrous  at  best,  to  these  later  chapters,  is  betrayed  by  the 
inanity  of  many  of  the  prefaces,  which  have  the  look  of  frames  or  cases 
without  any  thing  to  fill  them.  This  is  particularly  true  of  the  paragraphs 
professing  to  exhibit  the  occasion  upon  which  the  several  sections  were 
composed.  Here  the  author  not  unfrequendy  is  under  the  necessity  of  simply 
referring  to  the  preceding  chapter  as  affording  the  occasion  of  the  next, — an 
indirect  concession  that  the  separation  of  the  parts,  at  least  in  that  case,  is 
gratuitous  and  artificial. 

J.  H.  and  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Lowth,  Gill,  and  other  writers  of  the  same 
period,  while  they  wholly  discard  this  embarrassing  and  wearisome  ma- 
chinery, and  content  themselves  with  the  common  division  into  chapters,  are 
sometimes  chargeable  with  treating  these  too  much  as  an  original  arrange- 
ment of  the  author's  matter  by  himself,  and  thus  converting  the  whole  into 
a  series  of  detached  discourses.  The  same  thing  is  still  more  apparent  in 
the  popular  and  useful  works  of  Henry,  Scott,  and  others  ;  where  the  reader 
is  permitted,  if  not  taught,  to  look  upon  the  chapters  as  in  some  sense  inde- 
pendent compositions,  and  to  regard  the  first  verse  of  each  as  introducing 
and  the  last  as  winding  up  a  complete  subject.     This  would  be  hurtful  to 


INTRODUCTION.  xxxv 

correct  inlerpretation,  even  if  the  cliajDters  were  divided  with  the  most 
consummate  skill,  much  more  when  they  are  sometimes  the  result  of  the 
most  superficial  inspection. 

The  Higher  Critics  of  the  elder  race,  such  as  Eichhorn  and  his  follow- 
ers, carried  out  their  idea  of  entire  corruption  and  the  consequent  necessity 
of  total  revolution,  not  only  by  assuming  a  plurality  of  writers,  but  by  taking 
for  granted  that  their  compositions  had  been  put  together  perfectly  at  ran- 
dom, and  could  be  reduced  to  order  only  by  the  constant  practice  of  invent- 
ive ingenuity  and  critical  conjecture.  The  practical  effects  of  this  hypo- 
thesis were  valuable  only  as  exhibiting  its  folly  and  producing  a  reaction 
towards  more  reasonable  views.  As  a  specimen  of  this  school  may  be  men- 
tioned Bertholdl's  distribution  of  the  prophecies,  in  which  certain  chapters  and 
parts  of  chapters  are  picked  out  and  classified  as  having  been  written  before 
(he  invasion  of  Babylonia  by  Cyrus,  others  after  the  invasion  but  before  the 
siege  of  Babylon,  others  during  the  siege,  others  after  the  catastrophe, 

Gesenins  holds,  in  opposition  to  this  theory,  as  we  have  seen,  the  one- 
ness of  the  author  and  of  his  design.  With  respect  to  the  actual  arrangement 
of  the  book,  he  is  inclined  to  regard  it  as  original,  but  grants  it  to  be  possi- 
ble that  some  transpositions  may  have  taken  place,  and  more  particularly 
that  the  last  chapters,  as  they  now  stand,  may  be  older  than  the  first, 

Hitzig  maintains  the  strict  chronological  arrangement  of  the  chapters, 
with  the  exception  of  the  forty-seventh,  which  he  looks  upon  as  older,  but 
incorporated  with  the  others  by  the  writer  himself.  He  also  maintains, 
with  the  utmost  confidence,  the  oneness  of  the  composition,  and  rejects  all 
suggestions  of  interpolation  and  corruption  with  disdain.  This  departure 
from  his  method  in  the  earlier  portion  of  the  book  is  closely  connected  with 
his  wish  to  bring  the  date  of  the  prophecies  as  near  as  possible  to  that  of 
the  fulfilment.  For  the  same  reason  he  assumes  the  successive  composition 
of  the  parts  with  considerable  intervals  between  them,  during  which  lie 
supposes  the  events  of  the  Persian  war  to  have  followed  one  another  and 
repeatedly  changed  the  posture  of  affairs.  In  addition  to  this  chronological 
arrangement  of  his  own,  Hitzig  adopts  Riickeri's  threefold  division  of  the 
book  into  three  nearly  equal  parts,  as  indicated  by  the  closing  words  of  ch. 
48  and  57.  Ewald  adopts  the  same  view  of  the  unity  and  gradual  production 
of  these  prophecies,  but  with  a  different  distribution  of  the  parts.  Ch,  40-48 
he  describes  as  the  first  attempt,  exhibiting  the  freshest  inspiration  ;  ch.  49 
— 60  as  somewhat  later,  with  a  pause  at  the  end  of  ch,  57,  To  these  he 
adds  two  postscripts  or  appendixes,  an  earlier  one  ending  ch.  63  :  6,  and  a 
later  one  extending  to  the  close  of  the  book, 

Hendewerk  divides  the  whole  into  two  parallel  series,  the  first  endin"- 
with  the  forty-fifth  chapter.  He  rejects  Riickert's  threefold  division,  as 
founded  on  an  accidental  repetition.     He  also  rejects  Hitzig's  theory  as  to 


xxxvi  INTRODUCTION. 

ch.  47,  but  goes  still  further  in  determining  the  precise  stages  of  the  compo- 
sition and  tracing  in  the  prophecy  the  principal  events  in  the  history  of 
Cyrus.  Knobel  divides  the  whole  into  three  parts,  ch.  40-48,  ch.  49-62, 
ch.  G3-66. 

A  comparison  of  these  minute  arrangements  shows  that  they  are  founded 
on  imaginary  allusions,  or  prompted  by  a  governing  desire  to  prove  that  the 
writer  must  have  been  contemporary  with  the  exile,  a  wish  which  here  pre- 
dominates over  the  habitual  disposition  of  these  critics  to  explain  away 
apparent  references  to  history  rather  than  to  introduce  them  where  they  do 
not  really  exist. 

Discarding  these  imaginary  facts,  Havernick  goes  back  to  the  rational 
hypothesis  of  a  continuous  discourse,  either  uninterrupted  in  its  composition 
or  unaffected  in  its  structure  by  the  interruptions  which  are  now  beyond  the 
reach  of  critical  discovery,  and  for  the  same  reason  wholly  unimportant. 
This  is  substantially  the  ground  assumed  by  the  old  interpreters,  and  even 
by  Gesenius,  but  now  confirmed  by  the  utter  failure  of  all  efforts  to  establish 
any  more  artificial  distribution  of  the  text.  As  to  arrangement,  Havernick 
adopts  that  of  Ruckert,  which  is  rather  poetical  than  critical,  and  founded 
on  the  similar  close  of  ch.  4S  and  57,  coinciding  with  the  usual  division 
into  chapters,  so  as  to  throw  nine  into  each  of  the  three  portions.  As  an 
aid  to  the  memory,  and  a  basis  of  convenient  distribution,  this  hypothesis 
may  be  adopted  without  injury,  but  not  as  implying  that  the  book  consists 
of  three  independent  parts,  or  that  any  one  of  the  proposed  divisions  can  be 
satisfactorily  interpreted  apart  from  the  others.  The  greater  the  pains  tnken 
to  demonstrate  such  a  structure,  the  more  forced  and  artificial  must  the 
exposition  of  the  book  become;  and  it  is  therefore  best  to  regard  this  inge- 
nious idea  of  Ruckert  as  an  aesthetic  decoration  rather  than  an  exegetical 
expedient. 

After  carefully  comparing  all  the  methods  of  division  and  arrangement 
which  have  come  lo  my  knowledge,  I  am  clearly  of  opinion  that  in  this  part 
of  Scripture,  more  perhaps  than  any  other,  the  evil  to  be  shunned  is  not  so 
much  defect  as  excess  ;  that  the  book  is  not  only  a  continued  but  a  desul- 
tory composition  ;  that  although  there  is  a  sensible  progression  in  the  whole 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  it  cannot  be  distinctly  traced  in  every  minor 
part,  being  often  interrupted  and  obscured  by  retrocessions  and  resumptions, 
which,  though  governed  by  a  natural  association  in  each  case,  are  not  reduci- 
ble to  rule  or  system.  The  conventional  division  into  chapters,  viewed  as  a 
mechanical  contrivance  for  facilitating  reference,  is  indispensable,  and  cannot 
be  materially  changed  with  any  good  effect  at  all  proportioned  to  the  incon- 
venience and  confusion  which  would  necessarily  attend  such  a  departure  from 
a  usage  long  established  and  now  universally  familiar.  The  disadvantages 
attending  it,   or  springing  from    an  injudicious   use  of  it  by   readers   and 


INTRODUCTION.  xxxvii 

expounders,  are  the  frequent  separation  of  parts  which  as  really  cohere 
together  as  those  that  are  combined,  and  the  conversion  of  one  o-reat  shifting 
spectacle,  in  which  the  scenes  are  constantly  succeeding  one  another  in  a 
varied  order,  into  a  series  of  detached  and  unconnected  j)ictures,  throwing 
no  light  on  each  other  even  when  most  skilfully  divided,  and  too  often 
exhibiting  a  part  of  one  view  in  absurd  juxtaposition  with  another  less  akin 
to  it  than  that  from  which  it  has  been  violently  sundered. 

A  similar  caution  is  required  in  relation  to  the  summaries  or  prefatory 
notes  with  which  the  chapters,  in  conformity  to  usage  and  the  prevalent 
opinion,  are  provided  in  the  present  work.  In  order  to  prevent  an 
aggravation  of  the  evils  just  described,  a  distinction  must  be  clearly- 
made  between  these  summaries,  and  logical  analyses  so  useful  in  the 
study  of  an  argumentative  context.  It  is  there  that  such  a  method  is  at 
once  most  useful  and  most  easy ;  because  the  logical  nexus,  where  it  really 
exists,  is  that  which  may  be  most  successfully  detected  and  exhibited  as 
well  as  most  tenaciously  remembered.  But  in  the  case  of  an  entirely 
different  structure,  and  especially  in  one  where  a  certain  cycle  of  ideas  is 
repeated  often,  in  an  order  not  prescribed  by  logic  but  by  poetical  associa- 
tion, there  is  no  such  facility,  but  on  the  other  hand  a  tendency  to  sameness 
and  monotony  which  weakens  rather  than  excites  the  attention,  and  affords 
one  of  the  strongest  confirmations  of  the  views  already  taken  with  respect 
to  the  structure  of  the  whole  book  and  the  proper  mode  of  treating  it. 

The  most  satisfactory  and  useful  method  of  surveying  the  whole  book 
with  a  view  to  the  detailed  interpretation  of  the  pa^'ts  is,  in  my  opinion,  to 
obtain  a  clear  view  of  the  few  great  themes  with  v^'hich  the  writer's  mind 
was  filled,  and  of  the  minor  topics  into  which  they  readily  resolve  them- 
selves, and  then  to  mark  their  varied  combinations  as  they  alternately  pre- 
sent themselves,  some  more  fully  and  frequently  in  one  part  of  the  book, 
some  exclusively  in  one  part,  others  with  greater  uniformity  in  all.  The 
succession  of  the  prominent  figures  will  be  pointed  out  as  we  proceed  in  the 
interpretation  of  the  several  chapters.  But  in  order  to  afford  the  reader 
every  preliminary  aid  before  attempting  the  detailed  interpretation,  I  shall 
close  this  Introduction  with  a  brief  synopsis  of  the  whole,  presenting  at  a 
single  glance  its  prominent  contents  and  the  mutual  relation  of  its  parts. 

The  prominent  objects  here  presented  to  the  Prophet's  view  are  these 
five.  1.  The  carnal  Israel,  the  Jewish  nation,  in  its  proud  self-reliance  and 
its  gross  corruption,  whether  idolatrous  or  only  hypocritical  and  formal.  2. 
The  spiritual  Israel,  the  true  Church,  the  remnant  according  to  the  election 
of  grace,  considered  as  the  object  of  Jehovah's  favour  and  protection,  but  at 
the  same  time  as  weak  in  faith  and  apprehensive  of  destruction.  3.  The 
Babylonish  Exile  and  the  Restoration  from  it,  as  the  most  important  inter- 
mediate point  between  the  date  of  the  prediction  and  the  advent  of  Messiah, 


xxxviii  INTRODUCTION. 

and  as  an  earnest  or  a  sample  of  Jehovah's  future  dealings  with  his  people 
both  in  wrath  and  mercy.  4.  The  Advent  itself,  with  the  person  and 
character  of  Him  who  was  to  come  for  the  deliverance  of  his  people  not 
only  from  eternal  ruin  but  from  temporal  bondage,  and  their  introduction 
into  "glorious  liberty."  5.  The  character  of  this  new  condition  of  the 
Church  or  of  the  Christian  Dispensation,  not  considered  in  its  elements  but 
as  a  whole  ;  not  in  the  way  of  chronological  succession,  but  at  one  view  ; 
not  so  much  in  itself,  as  in  contrast  with  the  temporary  system  that  pre- 
ceded it. 

These  are  the  subjects  of  the  Prophet's  whole  discourse,  and  may  be 
described  as  present  to  his  mind  throughout ;  but  the  degree  in  which  they 
are  respectively  made  prominent  is  different  in  different  parts.  The  attempts 
which  have  been  made  to  show  that  they  are  taken  up  successively  and 
treated  one  by  one,  are  unsuccessful,  because  inconsistent  with  the  frequent 
repetition  and  recurrence  of  the  same  theme.  The  order  is  not  that  of  strict 
succession,  but  of  alternation.  It  is  still  true,  however,  that  the  relative 
prominence  of  these  great  themes  is  far  from  being  constant.  As  a  general 
fact,  it  may  be  said  that  their  relative  positions  in  this  respect  answer  to 
those  which  they  hold  in  the  enumeration  above  given.  The  character  of 
Israel,  both  as  a  nation  and  a  church,  is  chiefly  prominent  in  the  beginning, 
the  Exile  and  the  Advent  in  the  middle,  the  contrast  and  the  change  of 
dispensations  at  the  end.  With  this  general  conception  of  the  Prophecy, 
the  reader  can  have  very  little  difficulty  in  perceiving  the  unity  of  the 
discourse,  and  marking  its  transitions  for  himself,  even  without  the  aid  of  such 
an  abstract  as  the  following. 

The  form  in  which  the  Prophecy  begins  has  been  determined  by  its 
intimate  connexion  with  the  threatening  in  the  thirty-ninth  chapter.  To 
assure  the  Israel  of  God,  or  true  church,  that  the  national  judgments  which 
had  been  denounced  should  not  destroy  it,  is  the  Prophet's  purpose  in  the 
fortieth  chapter,  and  is  executed  by  exhibiting  Jehovah's  power,  and  willing- 
ness, and  fixed  determination  to  protect  and  save  his  own  elect.  In  the 
forty-first,  his  power  and  omniscience  are  contrasted  with  the  impotence  of 
idols,  and  illustrated  by  an  individual  example.  In  the  forty-second,  the 
person  of  the  great  Deliverer  is  introduced,  the  nature  of  his  influence 
described,  the  relation  of  his  people  to  himself  defined,  and  their  mission  or 
vocation  as  enligliteners  of  the  world  explained.  The  forty-third  completes 
this  exposition  by  exhibiting  the  true  design  of  Israel's  election  as  a  people, 
its  entire  inde[)endence  of  all  merit  in  themselves,  and  sole  dependence  on 
the  sovereign  will  of  God.  In  the  forty-fourth  the  argument  against  idolatry 
is  amplified  and  urged,  and  the  divine  sufficiency  and  faithfulness  exemplified 
by  a  historical  allusion  to  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  and  a  prophetic  one  to 
the  deliverance  from  Babylon,  in  which  last  Cyrus  is  expressly  named.   The 


INTRODUCTION.  xxxix 

last  part  of  this  chapter  should  have  been  connected  with  the  first  part  of 
the  forty-fifth,  in  which  the  name   of  Cyrus  is   repeated,  and  his  conquests 
represented  as  an  effect  of  God's  omnipotence,  and  the  prediction  as  a  proof 
of  his  omniscience,  both  which  attributes  are  then  again  contrasted  with  the 
impotence  and  senselessness  of  idols.     The  same  comparison  is  still  conti- 
nued in  the  forty-sixth,  with  special  reference  to  the  false  gods  of  Babylon, 
as  utterly  unable  to  deliver  either  their  worshippers  or  themselves.     In    the 
forty-seventh  the  description  is  extended  to  the  Babylonian  government,  as 
wholly  powerless  in  opposition  to  Jehovah's  interference  for  the  emancipation 
of  his  people.     The  forty-eighth  contains  the  winding  up  of  this  great  argu- 
ment from  Cyrus  and  the  fall  of  Babylon,  as  a  conviction  and  rebuke  to  the 
unbelieving  Jews  themselves.     The  fact  that  Babylon  is  expressly  men- 
tioned only  in  these  chapters  is  a  strong  confirmation  of  our  previous  conclu- 
sion that  it  is  not  the  main  subject  of  the  prophecy.     By  a  natural  transition 
he  reverts  in  the  forty-ninth  to  the  true  Israel,  and  shows  the  groundlessness 
of  their  misgivings,  by  disclosing  God's  design  respecting  them,  and  showing 
the  certainty  of  its  fulfilment  notwithstanding  all  discouraging  appearances. 
The  difference   in   the  character  and  fate  of  the  two  Israels  is  still  more 
exactly  defined  in  the  fiftieth  chapter.     In  the  fifty-first  the  true  relation  of 
the  chosen  people  both  to  God  and  to  the  gentiles  is  illustrated  by  historical 
examples — the  calling  of  Abram  and  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  and  the  same 
power  pledged  for  the  safety  of  Israel  in  time  to  come.     In  the  last  part  of 
this   chapter  and   the  first   of  the  fifty-second,  which  cohere   in   the  most 
intimate  manner,  the  gracious  purposes  of  God  are  represented  as  fulfilled 
already,  and  described  in  the  most  animating  terms.   This  view  of  the  future 
condition  of  the  church  could  not  be  separated  long  from  that  of  Him  by 
whom  it  was  to  be  effected  ;  and  accordingly  the  last  part  of  this  chapter, 
forming  one  unbroken  context  with  the  fifty-third,  exhibits  him  anew,  no 
longer  as  a   teacher,  but  as  the  great  sacrifice  for  sin.     No  sooner  is  this 
great  work  finished  than  the  best  days  of  the  church  begin,  the  loss  of  national 
distinction  being  really  a  prelude  to  her  glorious  emancipation.  The  promise 
of  this  great  change  in  the  fifty-fourth  chapter,  is  followed  in  the  fifty-fifth 
by  a  gracious  invitation  to  the  whole  world  to  partake  of  it.    The  fifty-sixth 
continues  the  same  subject,  by  predicting  the  entire  abrogation  of  all  local, 
personal,  and  national  distinctions.    Having  dwelt  so  long  upon  the  prospects 
of  the  spiritual  Israel  or  true  church,  the  Prophet,  in  the  last  part  of  the 
fifty-sixth  and  the  first  part  of  the  fifty-seventh,  looks  back  at  the  carnal 
Israel,  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  its  idolatrous  apostacy,  and  closes  with  a 
threatening  which  insensibly  melts  into  a  promise  of  salvation  to  the  true 
Israel.     The  fifty-eighth  again   presents  the  carnal  Israel,  not  as  idolaters 
but  as  hypocrites,  and  points  out  the  true  mean  between  the  rejection  of 
appointed  rites  and  the  abuse  of  them.     The  fifty-ninth  explains  Jehovah's 


xl  INTRODUCTION. 

dealings  with  the  nation  of  the  Jews,  and  shows  that  their  rejection  was  the 
fruit  of  their  own  doings,  as  the  salvation  of  the  saved  was  that  of  God's 
onHii|)otent  compassions.  In  the  sixtieth  he  turns  once  more  to  the  true 
Israel,  and  begins  a  series  of  magnificent  descriptions  of  the  new  dispen- 
sation as  a  whole,  contrasted  with  the  imperfections  and  restrictions  of  the 
old.  The  prominent  figures  of  the  picture  in  this  chapter  are  immense 
increase  by  the  accession  of  the  gentiles,  and  internal  purity  and  peace. 
The  prominent  figure  in  the  sixty-first  is  that  of  the  Messiah  as  the  agent  in 
this  great  work  of  spiritual  emancipation.  In  the  sixty-second  it  is  that  of 
Zion,  or  the  Church  herself,  in  the  most  intimate  union  with  Jehovah  and 
the  full  fruition  of  his  favour.  But  this  anticipation  is  inseparably  blended 
with  that  of  vengeance  on  the  enemies  of  God,  which  is  accordingly  presented 
in  the  sublime  vision  of  the  sixty-third  chapter,  followed  by  an  appeal  to 
God's  former  dealings  with  his  people,  as  a  proof  that  their  rejection  was 
their  own  fault,  and  that  he  will  still  protect  the  true  believers.  These  are 
represented  in  the  sixty-fourth  as  humbly  confessing  their  own  sins  and 
suing  for  the  favour  of  Jehovah.  In  the  sixty-fiftli  he  solemnly  announces 
the  adoption  of  the  gentiles  and  tlie  rejection  of  the  carnal  Israel  because  of 
their  iniquities,  among  which  idolatry  is  once  more  rendered  prominent.  He 
then  contrasts  the  doom  of  the  apostate  Israel  with  the  glorious  destiny 
awaiting  the  true  Israel.  And  this  comparison  is  still  continued  in  the  sixty- 
sixth  chapter,  where  the  Prophet,  after  ranging  through  so  wide  a  field  of 
vision,  seems  at  last  to  fix  his  own  eye  and  his  reader's  on  the  dividing  line 
or  turning  point  between  the  old  and  new  economy,  and  winds  up  the  whole 
drama  with  a  vivid  exhibition  of  the  nations  gathered  to  Jerusalem  for 
worship,  while  the  children  of  the  kingdom,  i.  e.  Israel  according  to  the 
flesh,  are  cast  forth  into  outer  darkness,  where  their  worm  dieth  not  and 
their  fire  is  not  quenched.  Upon  this  awful  spectacle  the  curtain  falls,  and 
we  are  left  to  find  relief  from  its  impressions  in  the  merciful  disclosures  of  a 
later  and  more  cheering  revelation. 


COMMENTARY. 


CHAPTER   XL. 

A  GLORIOUS  change  awaits  the  church,  consisting  in  a  new  and  gracious 
manifestation  of  Jehovah's  presence,  for  which  his  people  are  exhorted  to 
prepare,  vs.  1—5.  Thougli  one  generation  perish  after  another,  this  promise 
shall  eventually  he  fulfilled,  because  it  rests  not  upon  human  but  divine 
authority,  vs.  6-8.  Zion  may  even  now  see  him  approaching  as  the  con- 
queror of  his  enemies,  and  at  the  same  time  as  the  shepherd  of  his  people, 
vs.  9-11.  The  fulfilment  of  these  pledges  is  insured  by  his  infinite  wisdom, 
his  almighty  power,  and  his  independence  both  of  individuals  and  nations, 
vs.  12-17.  How  much  more  is  he  superior  to  material  images,  by  which 
men  represent  him  or  supply  his  place,  vs.  18-25.  The  same  power 
which  sustains  the  heavens  is  pledged  for  the  support  of  Israel,  vs.  26—31. 

The  specific  application  of  this  chapter  to  the  return  from  Babylon  is 
without  the  least  foundation  in  the  text  itself.  The  promise  is  a  general  one 
of  consolation,  protection,  and  change  for  the  better,  to  be  wrought  by  the 
power  and  wisdom  of  Jehovah,  which  are  contrasted,  first,  with  those  of 
men,  of  nations,  and  of  rulers,  then  with  the  utter  impotence  of  idols.  That 
the  ultimate  fulfilment  of  the  promise  was  still  distant,  is  implied  in  the 
exhortation  to  faith  and  patience.  The  reference  to  idolatry  proves  nothing 
with  respect  to  the  date  of  the  prediction,  although  more  appropriate  in  the 
writings  of  Isaiah  than  of  a  prophet  in  the  Babylonish  exile.  It  is  evidently 
meant,  however,  to  condemn  idolatry  in  general,  and  more  particularly  all 
the  idolatrous  defections  of  the  Israelites  under  the  old  economy. 

V.  1.  Comfort  ye,  comfort  ye  my  people,  saith  your  God.  This  com- 
mand is  not  addressed  specifically  to  the  priests  or  prophets,  much  less  to 
the  messengers  from  Babylon  announcing  the  restoration  of  the  Jews,  but  to 
any  who  might  be  supposed  to  hear  the  order,  as  in  ch.  13:  2,  or  to  the 
people  themselves,  who  arc  then  required  to  encourage  one  another,  as  in 
ch.  35:  3,  4.  The  Vulgate  even  goes  so  far  as  to  put  my  people  in  the 
vocative  (^papule  mens).  The  imperative  form  of  the  expression  is  poetical. 
Instead  of  declaring  his  own  purpose,  God  summons  men  to  execute  it. 

1 


2  CHAPTER    XL. 

Instead  of  saying,  /  will  comfort,  he  says,  comfort  ye.  The  same  idea  might 
have  been  expressed  by  saying,  in  ihe  third  person,  let  them  comfort  her,  or 
in  the  passive  voice,  let  her  be  comjorted.  The  possessive  pronouns  are 
emphatic,  and  suggest  that,  notwithstanding  what  they  suffered,  they  were  still 
Jehovah's  people,  he  was  still  their  God.  There  is  also  meaning  in  the 
repetition  of  the  verb  at  the  beginning.  Such  repetitions  are  not  unfrequent 
in  the  earlier  prophecies.  (Seech.  24:  16.  26:3.29:  1.38:  11,17,19.) 
The  use  of  the  future  -'rxi  for  the  preterite  -'.rx  (^saith)  h  peculiar  to  Isaiah. 
Gesenius  cites  as  instances  in  other  books,  Jer.  42:  20,  Zech.  13:  9,  and 
Hos.  2 :  23.  But  in  the  first  and  second  cases,  the  future  has  its  proper 
sense  and  not  that  of  the  present  ;  while  in  the  third,  the  Hebrew  word  is 
not  '^^s"'  but  CN3.  At  the  same  time,  he  omits  the  only  real  instance  not  in 
Isaiah,  viz.  Ps.  12:6.  Calvin  insists  upon  the  strict  translation  of  the  future 
(dicei),  as  implying  that  the  order  to  console  the  people  was  not  to  be  ac- 
tually given  till  a  later  period,  and  is  only  mentioned  here  by  anticipation. 
But  even  if  it  be  explained  as  a  present,  it  is  worthy  of  remark  that  this 
form  of  expression  is  not  only  peculiar  to  Isaiah,  but  common  to  both  parts 
of  the  book.  (See  ch.  1  :  11.  18.  33:  10.) — The  prefatory  exhortation  in 
this  verse  affords  a  key  to  the  whole  prophecy,  as  being  consolatory  in  its 
tone  and  purpose.  There  is  evident  allusion  to  the  threatening  in  ch.  39:  7. 
(Compare  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  652.)  Having  there  predicted  the 
captivity  in  Babylon,  as  one  of  the  successive  strokes,  by  which  the  fall  of 
Israel  as  a  nation  and  the  total  loss  of  its  peculiar  privileges  should  be 
brouidit  about,  the  Prophet  is  now  sent  to  assure  the  spiritual  Israel,  the  true 
people  of  Jehovah,  that  although  the  Jewish  nation  should  soon  cease  to  be 
externally  identified  with  the  church,  the  church  itself  should  not  only  con- 
tinue to  exist,  hut  in  a  far  more  glorious  state  than  ever.  This  is  the 
••people"  here  meant,  and  this  the  '-'comfort"  wherewith  they  were  to  be 
comforted. 

V.  2.  Speak  to  (or  ncronling  to)  the  heart  of  Jerusalem,  and  cry  to  her, 
that  her  warfare  is  accomj/lishtd.  that  her  iniquity  is  ■pardoned,  that  she 
hath  received  from  the  hand  o/  Jehovah  double  Jor  all  her  sins.  By  speak- 
ing to  the  heart,  we  are  to  understand  speaking  so  as  to  aflect  the  heart  or 
feelings,  and  also  in  accordance  with  the  heart  or  wishes,  i.  e.  what  the  per- 
son addressed  desires  or  needs  to  hear.  Jerusalem  is  here  put  for  the  church 
or  chosen  people,  whose  metropolis  it  was,  and  for  whose  sake  the  place 
itself  was  precious  in  the  sight  of  God.  Those  who  refer  the  passage  to  the 
Babylonish  exile  are  under  the  necessity  of  assuming  (with  Rosenmijller) 
that  the  consolation  was  addressed  to  those  left  behind  in  Judah,  or  (with 
Gesenius)  that  Jerusalem  means  its  inhabitants  in  exile.  Warfare  includes 
the  two  ideas  of  appointed  time  and  hard  service,  in  which  sense  the  verb 


CHAPTERXL,  3 

and  noun  are  both  ap[)lied  to  the  routine  of  sacerdotal  functions  (Num.  4  : 
23.  8  :  24,  25),  but  here  still  more  expressively  to  the  old  dispensation,  as  a 
period  of  restriction  and  constraint.  The  next  phrase  strictly  means  her 
iniquity  is  accepted,  i.  e.  an  atonement  for  it,  or  the  punishnient  already 
suffered  is  accepted  as  sufficient,  not  in  strict  justice,  but  in  reference  to 
God's  gracious  purpose.  The  same  idea  is  supjiosed  by  some  to  be  expressed 
in  the  last  clause,  where  c^^es  (^double')  is  not  used  mathematically  to  denote 
proportion,  but  poetically  to  denote  abundance,  like  the  equivalent  expres- 
sion nrojia  in  ch.  61:7,  Job  42  ;  10,  Zech.  9  :  12.  The  sense  will  then  be 
that  she  has  been  punished  abundantly,  not  more  than  she  deserved,  yet 
enough  to  answer  the  design  of  punishment.  But  as  giving  or  receiving 
double,  in  all  the  other  cases  cited,  has  respect,  not  to  punishment,  but  to 
favour  after  suffering,  so  this  clause  may  be  understood  to  mean,  that  she 
has  now  received  (or  is  receiving)  double  favours  notwithstanding  all  her 
sins.  The  a  has  then  the  same  sense  as  in  ch.  5  :  25.  9  :  11,  16,  20. 
10  :  4.  Either  of  these  explanations  makes  it  unnecessary  to  give  5m  the  rare 
and  doubtful  sense  of  punishment.  The  verbs  are  prteterita  prophetica,  hut 
for  that  very  reason  should  not  be  exchanged  for  futures,  as  we  have  no 
right  to  depart  without  necessity  from  the  descriptive  form  in  which  it  pleased 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  clothe  this  propliecy.  The  continuance  of  the  ceiemo- 
nial  system  and  the  hardships  of  the  old  dispensation  are  here  and  elsewhere 
represented  as  chastisements  due  to  the  defections  of  the  chosen  people, 
notwithstanding  which  they  should  continue  to  exist,  and  in  a  far  more  glo- 
rious character,  not  as  a  national  church,  but  as  a  spiritual  church,  set  free 
from  ritual  and  local  fetters. 

V.  3.  A  voice  crying — in  the  wilderness — clear  the  way  of  Jehovah 

make  straight  (or  level)  in  the  desert  a  highway  for  our  God.  The  Sep- 
tua-gint  version,  retained  in  the  New  Testament,  is  cfbivtj  ^odjpzot;,  which 
amounts  to  the  same  thing.  Both  in  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek,  the  words 
in  the  wilderness  may  be  connected  eiiher  with  what  follows  or  with  what 
precedes  ;  but  the  usual  division  is  more  natural,  and  the  other  has  been 
insisted  upon  chiefly  for  the  purpose  of  rendering  the  verse  inapplicable  to 
John  the  Baptist,  who  came  preaching  in  a  wilderness,  and  to  whom  the 
words  are  applied  expressly  in  Matthew  3:  3,  Mark  1  :  3,  Luke  3:4  as 
the  herald  of  the  new  dispensation.  Those  who  deny  the  inspiration  of  the 
Prophet  are  compelled  to  reject  this  as  a  mere  accommodation,  and  apply 
the  verse  exclusively  to  the  return  from  Babylon,  of  which  there  is  no  men- 
tion in  the  text  or  context.  It  is  said  indeed  that  God  is  here  represented 
as  marching  at  the  head  of  his  returning  people.  But  in  all  the  cases  which 
Lowth  cites  as  parallel,  there  is  express  allusion  to  the  exodus  from  Egypt. 


4  CHAPTERXL. 

Here,  on  the  contrary,  the  only  image  presented  is  that  of  God  returning  to 
Jerusalem,  revisiting  his  people,  as  he  did  in  every  signal  manifestation  of 
his  presence,  but  above  all  at  the  advent  of  Messiah  and  the  opening  of  the 
new  dispensation.  The  verb  rendered  prepare  denotes  a  particular  kind  of 
preparation,  viz.  the  removal  of  obstructions,  as  appears  from  Gen.  24:  31, 
Lev.  14:  36,  and  may  therefore  be  expressed  by  clear  in  English.  The 
parallel  verb  means  rectify  or  make  straight,  either  in  reference  lo  obliquity 
of  course  or  to  unevenness  of  surface,  most  probably  the  latter,  in  which  case 
it  may  be  expressed  by  level.  To  a  general  term  meaning  way  or  path  is 
added  a  specific  one  denoting  an  artificial  causeway  raised  above  the  surface 
of  the  earth.  There  is  no  need  of  supposing  (with  Lowth)  that  the  Prophet 
here  alludes  to  any  particular  usage  of  the  oriental  sovereigns,  or  (with  Gro- 
tius)  that  the  order  of  the  first  and  second  verses  is  continued  (Jet  there  be  a 
voice  crying).  The  Prophet  is  describing  what  he  actually  hears — a  voice 
crying  ! — or  as  Ewald  boldly  paraphrases  the  expression — hark,  one  cries  ! 

V.  4.  Every  valley  shall  be  raised  and  every  mountain  and  hill  brought 
low,  and  the  uneven  shall  become  level  and  the  ridges  a  plain.  This  may  be 
considered  as  an  explanation  of  the  manner  in  which  the  way  of  the  Lord 
was  to  be  prepared.  Grotius  supposes  the  command  at  the  beginning  of  the 
chapter  to  be  still  continued  (let  every  valley  etc.),  and  the  latest  German 
writers  give  the  same  construction  of  this  verse,  although  they  make  a  new 
command  begin  in  the  one  preceding.  The  form  of  the  following  verb 
(n;;n'i),  though  not  incompatible  with  this  explanation,  rather  favours  the  strict 
interpretation  of  the  future,  which  is  of  course,  on  general  principles,  to  be 
preferred.  The  common  version  (exalted)  seems  to  imply  that  the  valleys 
and  mountains  were  to  exchange  places  ;  but  this  would  not  facilitate  the 
passing,  which  requires  that  both  should  be  reduced  to  a  common  level. — 
The  translation  crooked  is  retained  and  defended  by  some  modern  writers-  on 
the  ground  that  the  parallel  expression  requires  it ;  but  as  "nt»3i53  may  denote 
not  only  lineal  but  superficial  rectitude,  so  n'p:^,  as  its  opposite,  may  naturally 
signify  unevenness  of  surface,  which  is  more  appropriate  in  this  connexion 
than  obliquity  or  irregularity  of  course,  o'^or'-i,  according  to  its  etymology, 
denotes  gorges  or  ravines,  or  rather  difficult  passes  ;  but  in  this  case  it  seems 
to  be  the  opposite  of  flat  or  level  ground,  and  may  therefore  be  expressed 
by  ridges.  The  application  of  these  several  terms  to  different  moral  or 
spiritual  objects — such  as  various  classes  in  society  or  nations  of  the  earth — 
rests  upon  the  false  assumption  that  the  features  of  a  portrait  or  the  figures 
in  a  landscape  are  to  be  considered  one  by  one,  and  not  in  their  mutual 
relations,  as  composing  a  whole  picture.  (Compare  the  comment  on  ch. 
5 :  4,  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  66.)     The  whole  impression  here  intended  to  be 


CHAPTERXL.  5 

made  is  that  of  a  way  opened  through  a  wilderness  by  levelling  the  ground 
and  the  removal  of  obstructions,  as  a  natural  image  for  the  removal  of  the 
hinderances  to  God's  revisiting  his  people. 

V.  5.  And  the  glory  of  Jehovah  shall  be  revealed,  arid  all  Jlesh  shall 
see  (it),  for  the  mouth  of  Jehovah  speaks  (or  hath  spoken).  The  subjunc- 
tive construction  of  the  first  clause  by  Junius  and  Tremellius  (ut  reveletur) 
is  adopted  by  Hitzig  and  Ewald,  but  without  necessity.  The  idea  seems  to 
be  that  as  soon  as  the  way  is  opened,  the  Lord  will  show  himself.  I'in'i  may 
express  either  coincidence  of  time  (at  once)  or  totality  (altogether),  more 
probably  the  latter.  Ewald  needlessly  reads  i^'tt^"',  which  he  supposes  to  be 
implied  in  the  Septuagint  version  (to  acozi'iniov  tov  &tov),  retained  by  Luke 
(3  :  6).  But  this  only  shows  that  salvation  was  included  in  the  glory  which 
should  be  revealed.  Gesenius  follows  Luther  in  making  the  last  clause  express 
the  thing  to  be  seen  (shall  see  that  the  mouth  of  Jehovah  hath  spoken)  ;  but 
this  construction  is  precluded  by  the  fact  that  this  is  the  only  case  in  which 
the  sense  thus  put  upon  the  formula  is  even  possible  ;  in  all  others  the 
meaning  of  the  clause  not  only  may  but  must  he,  for  (because)  the  mouth  of- 
the  Lord  hath  spoken,  as  a  reason  why  the  declaration  should  be  credited. 
(See  ch.  1  :  2,  20.  22:  25.  58:  14.  Jer.  13:  15.  Joel  4:8.  Ob.  1  :  18.) 
To  this,  the  only  tenable  construction,  all  the  later  German  writers  have 
returned.  To  see  God's  glory,  is  a  common  expression  for  recognizing  his 
presence  and  agency  in  any  event.  (See  Exod.  16  :  7.  Is.  35  :  2.  QQ  :  18.) 
The  specific  reference  of  this  verse  to  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  exile 
is  not  only  gratuitous  but  inconsistent  with  the  strength  and  comprehensive- 
ness of  its  expressions.  The  simple  meaning  is,  that  when  the  way  should 
be  prepared,  the  glory  of  God  would  be  universally  displayed  ;  a  promise  too 
extensive  to  be  fully  verified  in  that  event  or  period  of  history. 

V.  6.  A  voice  saying,  Cry !  And  he  said  (or  says).  What  shall  I  cry  1 
All  jlesh  is  grass,  and  all  its  favour  like  a  flower  of  the  field !  Here,  as  in 
V.  3,  the  participle  is  construed  in  the  genitive  by  the  Septuagint  (cpavij 
XtyovTO'i)  and  the  Vulgate  (vox  dicentis)  ;  but  the  simplest  construction  makes 
it  agree  with  voice  as  an  adjective.  That  two  distinct  speakers  are  here 
introduced,  seems  to  be  granted  by  all  interpreters,  excepting  Junius  and 
Tremellius,  who  refer  ^53j<  and  "iiax  to  the  same  subject,  and  exclude  the 
interrogation  altogether.  A  voice  says,  Cry,  and  it  also  says  (or  tells  7ne) 
what  1  shall  cry.  Cocceius  supplies  is  heard  at  the  beginning.  Ewald 
adopts  the  same  form  of  expression  as  in  v.  3.  Hark !  one  says,  Cry. 
The  force  and  beauty  of  the  verse  are  much  impaired  by  any  version  which 
(does  not  represent  the  writer  as  actually  hearing  what  he  thus  describes. 


Q  CHAPTERXL. 

The  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  have  and  I  said,  either  because  they  read  "i^si 
vvliich  is  found  in  one  or  two  manuscripts,  or  because  they  understood  the 
form  used  in  the  common  text  as  certainly  referring  to  the  Prophet  himself. 
Augusti  supplies  the  herald  says,  which  is  unnecessary.  There  is  a  pleasing 
mystery,  as  Hitzig  well  observes,  in  the  dialogue  of  these  anonymous  voices, 
which  is  dispelled  by  undertaking  to  determine  too  precisely  who  the  speak- 
ers are.  All  that  the  words  necessarily  convey  is,  that  one  voice  speaks 
and  another  voice  answers.  Interpreters  are  universally  agreed  that  the  last 
clause  contains  the  words  which  the  second  speaker  is  required  to  utter.  It 
is  possible,  however,  to  connect  these  words  immediately  with  what  precedes, 
and  understand  them  as  presenting  an  objection  to  the  required  proclama- 
tion. JVhat  shall  (or  can)  I  cry,  (^since)  all  Jiesh  is  grass  etc.  The 
advantages  of  this  construction  are,  that  it  assumes  no  change  of  speaker 
where  none  is  intimated  in  the  text,  and  that  it  does  away  with  an  alleged 
tautology,  as  will  be  seen  below.  According  to  the  usual  construction  we 
are  to  supply  before  the  last  clause,  and  the  first  voice  said  again  (or  an- 
swered), Cry  as  follotvs  :  All  fiesh  etc.  This  last  phrase  is  here  used,  not 
in  its  widest  sense,  as  comprehending  the  whole  animal  world  (Gen.  6  :  7, 
13,  17),  but  in  its  more  restricted  application  to  mankind,  of  which  some 
examples  may  be  found  in  the  New  Testament  (John  17:2.  Rom.  3:  20). 
The  comparison  of  human  frailty  to  grass  is  conunon  in  the  Scriptures.  (See 
eh.  37  :  27.  51  :  12.  Ps.  103  :  15,  16.  James  1  :  10,  1 1.)  J.  D.  Michaelis 
supposes  an  allusion,  in  the  last  clause,  to  the  sudden  blasting  of  oriental 
flowers  by  the  burning  east  wind.  The  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  give  i'Xin 
the  sense  of  glory,  which  is  retained  by  Peter  (1  Pet.  1  :  24,  25).  From 
this  Grotius,  Houbigant,  and  others  infer  that  the  original  reading  was  iiin. 
Gesenius  rejects  this  as  altogether  arbitrary,  but  w  ith  as  little  ground  assumes 
that  non,  in  this  one  place,  is  synonymous  with  "(H,  when  used  (like  the 
English  ^r«ce  ?in(\  favour)  in  the  sense  of  beauty.  Hendewerk  even  goes 
so  far  as  to  say  that  /«(>/*,  in  Luke  2  :  40,  has  an  asthetic  sense.  To 
assume  a  new  sense  of  ion  in  this  one  case  is  a  violation  of  the  soundest 
principles  of  lexicography,  and  instead  of  letting  the  writer  express  his  own 
ideas,  forces  upon  him  what  the  commentator  thinks  he  might  have  said  or 
should  have  said.  There  may  be  cases  where  a  word  must  be  supposed  to 
have  a  peculiar  sense  in  some  one  place  ;  but  such  assumptions  can  be  jus- 
tified by  nothing  but  extreme  necessity,  and  that  no  such  necessity  exists  in 
this  case  is  apparent  from  the  fact  that  the  usual  explanation  gives  a  perfectly 
good  sense.  The  contrast  is  then  between  the  shortlived  and  precarious 
favour  of  man  and  the  infallible  promise  of  God.  The  quotation  in  Peter 
confirms  the  supposition,  here  suggested  by  the  context,  that  the  words  have 
reference  to  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  or  the  introduction  of  the  new 
dispensation. 


CHAPTERXL.  7 

V.  7.  Dried  is  the  grass,  failed  the  Jlower ;  for  the  breath  of  Jehovah 
has  blown  upon  it.     Surely  the  people  is  grass.     The  present  form  usually 
given  to  the  verbs  conveys  the  sense  correctly  as  a  general  proposition,  but 
not   in   its  original   shape  as  a   description  of  what  has  actually  happened, 
and   may  be  expected   to  occur  again. — The  translation  when  (instead  of 
for),  preferred  by   Gesenius  and  some  older  writers,  is  only  inadmissible 
because  it  is  a  needless  deviation  from  the  usual   meaning  of  the   particle, 
which  yields  a  perfectly  good  sense  in  this  connexion. — If  nn  does  not  here 
denote  a  divine  agent,  which  is  hardly  consistent  with  the  figurative  form  of 
the  whole  sentence,  it  should  be  taken  in  its  primary  sense  of  breath,  not  in 
the  intermediate  one  of  wind ;   although  this,  as  Gesenius  suggests,  may  be 
what  the  figure  was  intended  to  express,  the  figure  itself  is  that  of  a  person 
breathing  on  the  grass  and  flower  and  causing  them  to  wither.     It  is  strange 
that  Lowth  should  have  overlooked  this  natural  and  striking  image,  to  adopt 
the  unpoetical  and  frigid  notion,  that  "  a  wind  of  Jehovah   is   a   Hebraism, 
meaning  no  more  than  a  strong  wind." — '3X,  which  properly  means  surely, 
verily,  is  here  equivalent  to  an  affirmative  particle,  yea  or  yes,  and  is  so 
explained  by  Luther. — The  treatment  which  this  last  clause  has  experienced 
affords  an  instructive  illustration  of  the  real  value  of  the  '  higher  criticism.* 
Koppe,  the  father  of  this  modern  art  or  science,  rejects  the  clause  as  spuri- 
ous because  it  violates  the  parallelism.     He  is  followed,  with  some  hesitation, 
by  Gesenius,  who  assigns  as  additional  reasons,  that  the  sense  is  ivatcry  and 
incoherent,  and  that  the  clause  is  wanting  in  the  Septuagint,  although  he 
does  not  hesitate  to  retain  the  first  clause,  which  is  also  omitted  in  that 
ancient  version.     Hitzig  grants  that  this  omission  may  have  been  a  mere 
mistake  or  inadvertence,  but  still  rejects  the  clause,  upon  the  ground,  that  it 
contains  a  false  explanation  of  what  goes  before,  because  tijn,  when  abso- 
lutely used,  must  mean   the  Jews,  whereas  the  reference  in  this  whole  con- 
text is  to  the  gentiles  ;  as  if  the  latter  allegation  did  not  utterly  subvert  the 
other,  by  determining  in  what  sense  nyn  must  here  be  taken.     Instead  of 
arguing  that,  because  the  gentiles  are  referred  to  in  the  context,  therefore 
they  must  be  meant  here  likewise,  he  assumes  that  they  are  not  meant  here, 
and  then  pronounces  the  clause  inconsistent  with  the  context.     The  clause 
is  retained  as  genuine  by  all  the  German   writers  since  Hitzig.     Another 
curious  instance  of  the  confidence,  with  which  the  higher  critics  can  affirm 
contradictory   propositions,   is   the    fact    that    while    Hitzig  says   that  csn 
must  mean  Israel,  Gesenius  quietly  assumes  that  it  must  mean  the  Baby- 
lonians. 

V.  8.  Dried  is  the  grass,  faded  the  Jlower,  and  the  word  of  our  God 
shall  stand  for  ever.  The  comparatively  rare  use  of  adversative  particles  in 
Hebrew  is  apparent  from  this  verse,  in  which  the  relation  of  the  clauses  can 


8  CHAPTERXL. 

be  fully  expressed  in  English  only  by  means  of  the  word  hut. — Kimchi 
explains  word  to  mean  the  word  of  prophecy,  wliile  others  give  it  the  specific 
sense  of  promise,  and  others  understand  it  as  denoting  the  gospel,  on  the 
authority  of  1  Peter  1  :  25.  All  these  explanations  can  be  reconciled  by 
suffering  the  Prophet  to  express  his  own  ideas,  without  any  adventitious 
limitation,  and  admitting,  as  the  only  sure  conclusion,  that  by  word  he 
means  neither  promise,  nor  prophecy,  nor  gospel  merely,  but  every  word 
that  proccedcth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God  (Deut.  8  :  3.  IMatth.  4  :  4).  There 
is  a  tacit  antithesis  between  the  word  of  God  and  man  ;  what  man  says  is 
uncertain  and  precarious,  what  God  says  cannot  fail.  Thus  understood  it 
includes  prediction,  precept,  promise,  and  the  offer  of  salvation,  and  although 
the  latter  is  not  meant  exclusively,  the  Apostle  makes  a  perfectly  correct 
and  most  important  application  of  the  verse  when,  after  quoting  it,  he  adds, 
and  this  is  the  word,  which  is  preached  (evayyBha&iv)  unto  you,  that  is  to 
say,  this  prophetic  declaration  is  emphatically  true  of  the  gospel  of  Christ. 
To  stand  for  ever  is  a  common  Hebrew  phrase  for  perpetuity,  security,  and 
sure  fulfilment.  The  expression  our  God  contains,  as  usual,  a  reference  to 
the  covenant  relation  between  God  and  his  people.  Even  according  to  the 
usual  arrangement  and  construction  of  these  verses,  the  emphatic  repetition 
in  vs.  7  and  8  can  only  be  thought  watery  by  critics  of  extreme  refinement. 
It  is  possible,  however,  to  avoid  the  appearance  of  tautology  by  means  of  an 
arrangement  which  has  been  already  hinted  at  as  possible,  although  it  does 
not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  any  of  the  interpreters.  The  proposition  is  to 
give  the  passage  a  dramatic  form,  by  making  the  last  clause  of  v.  6  and  the 
whole  of  v.  7  a  continuation  of  the  words  of  the  second  voice,  and  then 
regarding  v.  8  as  a  rejoinder  by  the  first  voice.  The  whole  may  then  be 
paraphrased  as  follows.  A  voice  says,  '  Cry !'  And  (another  voice)  says, 
'  What  shall  I  cry'  (i.  e.  to  what  purpose  can  I  cry,  or  utter  promises  like 
those  recorded  in  vs.  1-5),  since  all  flesh  is  grass  &c. ;  the  grass  withereth 
Sec. ;  surely  the  people  is  grass  (and  cannot  be  expected  to  witness  the  ful- 
filment of  these  promises).  But  the  first  voice  says  again  :  '  The  grass  does 
wither,  and  the  flower  does  fade  ;  but  these  events  depend  not  on  the  life  of 
man,  but  on  the  word  of  God,  and  the  word  of  God  shall  stand  for  ever.' 
There  are  no  doubt  some  objections  to  this  exegetical  hypothesis,  especially 
its  somewhat  artificial  character ;  and  therefore  it  has  not  been  introduced 
into  the  text,  but  is  simj)]y  thrown  out  here,  as  a  possible  alternative,  to 
those  who  are  not  satisfied  with  the  more  obvious  and  usual  construction  of 
the  passage. 

V.  9.  Upon  a  high  niountnin  get  thee  up,  brit\ger  of  good  news,  Zion! 
Raise  with  strength  thy  voice,  hringer  of  good  news,  Jerusalem  I  Raise 
(it),  fear  not,  soy  to  the  towns  of  Judah,  Lo  your  God!     The  reflexive 


CHAPTERXL.  9 

form,  get  thee  up,  though  not  a  literal  translation,  is  an  idiomatic  equivalent 
to  the  Hebrew  phrase  (^ascend  for  thee  or  for  thyself).  Some  suppose  an 
allusion  to  the  practice  of  addressing  large  assemblies  from  the  summit  or 
acclivity  of  hills.  (See  Judges  9  :  7.  Deut.  27  :  1 2.  Matth.  5:1.)  J.  D. 
Michaelis  compares  ihe  ancient  practice  of  transmitting  news  by  shouting 
from  one  hill-top  to  another,  as  described  by  Cajsar  (Bell.  Gall.  vii.  3). 
Celcriter  ad  omnes  Gallia  civiiates  fama  perfertur ;  nam  ubi  major  atque 
illustrior  incidit  res,  clamore  per  agros  regionesque  significant ;  hunc  alii 
deinceps  excipiunt  et  proximis  tradant.  The  essential  idea  is  that  of  local 
elevation  as  extending  the  diffusion  of  the  sound. — There  are  two  construc- 
tions of  "ii'S  n"!ta^^  and  the  parallel  expression.  The  first  supposes  the  words 
to  be  in  regimen,  the  other  in  apposition.  According  to  the  former,  which 
is  given  in  the  Septuagint,  Targum,  and  Vulgate,  and  retained  by  Grotius, 
Lowth,  GeseniuS;  and  others,  the  person  addressed  is  the  bearer  of  good  tidings 
to  Zion  and  Jerusalem  (compare  ch.  52  :  7.  Nah.  2  :  1).  The  feminine  form 
is  explained  by  Grotius  as  an  enallage  for  the  masculine,  like  nbn'p  Preacher, 
an  idiom,  as  Dathe  thinks,  peculiar  to  official  titles.  Gesenius  regards  it  as 
an  instance  of  the  idiomatic  use  of  the  feminine  singular  as  a  collective,  like 
raoji  for  ci^d"i  (Mic.  1:11,  12),  and  agrees  with  the  Targum  in  making  the 
prophets  the  object  of  address.  But  this  whole  theory  of  collective  feminines 
is  so  unnatural,  and  so  imperfectly  sustained  by  the  cases  which  Gesenius 
cites  (Lehrg.  p.  477.  Heb.  Gr.  <§»  105.  2.  c),  that  if  the  construction  now  in 
question  be  adopted,  it  is  better  to  revert  to  the  hypothesis  of  Lowth  and 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  that  the  Prophet  alludes  to  the  practice  of  celebrating  victo- 
ries by  the  songs  of  women.  (See  Ex.  15:  20,  21.  Judg.  11:34.  1  Sam. 
18  :  6,  7.)  But  although  this  explanation  is  decidedly  more  natural  than 
that  of  Grotius  and  Gesenius,  it  is  perhaps  less  so  than  the  ancient  one  con- 
tained in  the  Peshito  and  the  three  Greek  versions  of  Aquila,  Symmachus, 
and  Theodotion,  according  to  which  Zion  or  Jerusalem  herself  is  represented 
as  the  bearer  of  good  tidings  to  the  towns  of  Judah.  This  construction  is 
further  recommended  by  the  beautiful  personification,  which  it  introduces,  of 
the  Holy  City  as  the  seat  of  the  true  religion  and  the  centre  of  the  church. 
The  office  here  ascribed  to  it  is  the  same  that  is  recognised  in  ch.  2:3:  the 
laiv  shall  go  forth  from  Zion,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem. 
Not  only  in  the  restoration  from  captivity,  or  in  the  personal  advent  of  the 
Saviour,  but  in  every  instance  of  the  Lord's  return  to  his  forsaken  people,  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  church  to  communicate  as  well  as  to  receive  the  joyful 
tidings. — The  explanation  of  Jerusalem  and  Zion  as  meaning  their  inhabit- 
ants among  the  captivity  is  still  more  arbitrary  here  than  in  v.  2,  because  no 
reason  can  be  given  why  the  exiles  from  the  Holy  City  should  be  called  upon 
to  act  as  heralds  to  the  others,  whereas  there  is  a  beautiful  poetical  propriety 
in  giving  that  office  to  the  Holy  City  itself. — Let  the  reader  carefully  ob- 


JO  CHAPTERXL. 

serve  how  many  exegetical  embarrassments  arise  from  the  attempt  to  confine 
the  application  of  the  passage  to  the  period  of  the  exile  or  to  any  other  not 
particularly  indicated.  The  exhortation  not  to  fear  does  not  imply  that 
there  was  danfrer  in  makino;  ihe  announcement,  but  that  there  mi";ht  be 
doubt  and  hesitation  as  to  its  fulfihnent. — Barnes  thinks  it  necessary  to  pre- 
vent abuse  of  this  text  by  affirming  that  it  '  will  not  justify  boisterous 
preaching,  or  a  loud  and  unnatural  tone  of  voice,  alike  offensive  to  good 
taste,  injurious  to  health,  and  destructive  of  the  life  of  the  preacher.'  He 
also  infers  from  it  that  'the  glad  tidings  of  salvation  should  be  delivered  in 
an  animated  and  ardent  manner;  the  future  punishment  of  the  wicked  in  a 
tone  serious,  solemn,  subdued,  awful.' 

V.  10.  Lo,  the  Lord  Jehovah  will  come  (or  is  coming)  in  {the  person 
of)  a  strong  one,  and  his  arm  {is)  ruling  for  him.  Lo,  his  hire  is  with  him 
and  his  wages  btfore  him.  The  double  r^ir\  represents  the  object  as  already 
appearing  or  in  sight.  Of  the  phrase  Pjns  there  are  several  interpretations. 
All  the  ancient  versions  make  it  mean  with  strength;  but  this  abstract  sense 
of  the  adjective  is  not  sustained  by  usage,  and  the  same  objection  lies,  with 
still  greater  force,  against  Ewald's  version,  in  victory.  Aben  Ezra  and 
Kimchi  supply  i^  (ivith  a  strong  hand)  ;  but  wherever  the  entire  phrase 
occurs,  the  noun  is  construed  as  a  feminine.  Jarchi  makes  it  mean  against 
the  strong  one,  which  Vitringa  adopts  and  applies  the  phrase  to  Satan.  But 
usage  requires  that  xia,  when  it  has  this  sense,  should  be  construed  with  its 
object,  either  directly,  or  by  means  of  the  prepositions  h-J,  bx,  or  h.  De  Dieu 
regards  the  2  as  pleonastic  or  a  beth  essentice,  corresponding  to  the  French 
construction  en  roi,  in  (the  character  or  person  of)  a  king.  The  existence  of 
this  idiom  in  Hebrew  is  questioned  by  some  eminent  grammarians,  and  is  at 
best  so  unusual  that  it  should  not  be  assumed  without  necessity.  (See  the 
comment  on  ch.  26  :  4,  in  the  Earlier  Piophecies,  p.  440.)  The  choice, 
however,  seems  to  lie  between  this  and  the  construction  which  explains  the 
words  to  mean  that  he  will  come  with  a  strong  one ;  as  In  ch.  28  :  2,  the 
Lord  is  said  to  have  a  strong  and  mighty  one,  who  should  cast  the  crown 
of  Ephraim  to  the  ground  with  his  hand.  What  God  is  said  to  do  himself 
in  one  case,  he  is  represented  in  the  other  as  accomplishing  by  means  of  a 
powerful  instrument  or  agent,  which,  however,  is  defined  no  further.  The 
essential  meaning,  common  to  the  two  constructions,  is,  that  Jehovah  was 
about  lo  make  a  special  exhibition  of  his  power. — The  participle  ruling,  in 
the  next  clause,  is  expressive  of  continuous  action.  The  ib  cannot  refer  to 
arm,  which  Gesenius  suggests  as  a  possible  construction,  because  sii",  al- 
though sometimes  masculine,  is  here  expressly  construed  as  a  feminine.  The 
antecedent  of  the  pronoun  must  be  either  Jehovah  or  the  Strong  One, 
according  to  the  sense  in  which  pjna  is  taken,  as  descriptive  of  God  himself, 


CHAPTERXL.  U 

or  of  his  instrument.  Those  who  understand  that  phrase  to  mean  against 
the  strong  one,  give  the  next  the  sense  of  ruling  over  him.  But  although 
b  strictly  denotes  relation  in  general  (os  to,  with  respect  to),  and  admits  of 
various  equivalents  in  English,  it  is  never  elsewhere  used  in  this  sense  after 
h^-Q  to  rule,  which,  with  scarcely  an  exception,  is  followed  by  the  preposition 
3.  The  true  sense  of  ib  is  probably  the  obvious  one  for  him,  and  the  clause 
is  a  poetical  description  of  the  arm  as  acting  independently  of  its  possessor, 
and  as  it  were  in  his  behalf. — Here,  as  in  Lev.  19  :  13,  Ps.  109  :  20,  Is. 
49  :  4,  ii^ss  work  is  put  for  its  effect,  reward,  or  product.  There  is  no  need 
of  assuming,  with  Kimchi,  an  ellipsis  of  "lab  before  it.  The  word  itself,  as 
Aben  Ezra  well  explains  it,  is  equivalent  in  meaning  to  bsian  laia. — J.  D. 
Michaelis  considers  it  as  doubtful  whether  the  person  here  referred  to  is 
described  as  dispensing  or  receiving  a  reward,  since  in  either  case  it  would 
be  his.  The  former  explanation  is  preferred  by  most  interpreters,  some  of 
whom  suppose  a  specific  allusion  to  the  customary  distribution  of  prizes  by 
commanders  after  victory.  Upon  this  general  supposition,  Lowth  explains 
the  phrase  before  him,  as  referring  to  the  act  of  stretching  forth  the  hand,  or 
holding  out  the  thing  to  be  bestowed.  Those  who  restrict  the  passage  to 
the  Babylonish  exiles,  for  the  most  part  understand  this  clause  as  promising 
a  recompense  to  such  of  the  captives  as  had  patiently  endured  God's  will 
and  believed  his  promises.  Knobel,  however,  understands  it  as  referring  to 
the  redeemed  people  as  being  themselves  the  recompense  of  their  deliverer  ; 
and  Henderson  adopts  the  same  construction,  but  applies  it  to  the  recompense 
earned  by  the  Messiah.  This  explanation  is  favoured  by  what  follows  in 
the  next  verse,  where  Jehovah  or  his  Strong  One  is  described  as  a  shep- 
herd.— The  two  verses  may  be  readily  connected,  without  any  change  of 
figure,  by  supposing  that  the  lost  sheep  which  he  has  recovered  are  the 
recompense  referred  to  in  the  verse  before  us.  Thus  understood,  the  pas- 
sage may  have  furnished  the  occasion  and  the  basis  of  our  Saviour's  beauti- 
ful description  of  himself  as  the  true  shepherd,  who  lays  down  his  life  for  the 
sheep,  as  well  as  of  the  figure  drawn  from  the  recovery  of  a  lost  sheep  to 
illustrate  the  rejoicing  in  heaven  over  one  repentant  sinner.  But  a  still 
more  decisive  argument  in  favour  of  this  interpretation  is  the  fact,  that  in 
every  case  without  exception  where  "sb  and  n^sja  have  the  same  sense  as 
here,  the  hire  or  wages  of  a  person  is  the  hire  or  wages  paid  to  him,  and 
not  that  paid  by  him.  To  give  it  the  latter  meaning  in  this  one  case  there- 
fore would  be  to  violate  a  usage,  not  merely  general  but  uniform  ;  and  such 
a  violation  could  be  justified  only  by  a  kind  and  degree  of  exegetical  neces- 
sity which  no  one  can  imagine  to  exist  in  this  case.  Upon  these  grounds  it 
is  probable,  not  only  that  Jehovah  is  here  represented  as  receiving  a  reward, 
but  that  there  is  special  reference  to  the  recompense  of  the  Messiah's  suf- 
ferings and  obedience  by  the  redemption  of  his  people.     According  to  the 


12  CHAPTERXL. 

view  which  has  been  taken  of  the  nexus  between  these  two  verses,  before 
him  may  possibly  contain  an  allusion  to  the  shepherd's  following  his  flock  ; 
but  it  admits  of  a  more  obvious  and  simple  explanation,  as  denoting  that  his 
recompense  is  not  only  sure  but  actually  realized,  being  already  in  his  sight 
or  presence,  and  with  him,  i.  c.  in  immediate  possession. 

V.  ]  1 .  Like  a  shepherd  his  Jlock  will  he  feed,  with  his  arm  will  he 
gather  the  lambs,  and  in  his  bosom  carry  (them)  ;  the  nursing  (eit-ts)  he 
will  (gentli/)  lead.  Although  the  meaning  of  this  verse  is  plain,  it  is  not 
easily  translated,  on  account  of  the  peculiar  fitness  and  significancy  of  the 
terms  employed.  The  word  correctly  rendered  feed  denotes  the  whole 
care  of  a  shepherd  for  his  flock,  and  has  therefore  no  exact  equivalent  in 
English.  To  gather  with  the  arm  coincides  very  nearly,  although  not  pre- 
cisely, with  our  phrase  to  take  up  in  the  arms.  A  very  similar  idea  is  ex- 
pressed by  bearing  in  the  bosom.  The  last  clause  has  been  more  misunder- 
stood than  any  other.  Most  interpreters  appear  to  have  regarded  mb?  as 
denoting  pregnant,  whereas  it  is  the  active  participle  of  the  verb  b>i:',  to 
suckle  or  give  suck,  and  is  evidently  used  in  that  sense  in  1  Samuel  6  :  7, 
10.  The  former  explanation  might  appear  to  have  arisen  from  a  misappre- 
hension of  the  Vulgate  version,  fcetas,  which,  as  Bochart  has  shown  by 
quotations  from  the  classics,  is  sometimes  applied  to  animals  after  delivery, 
but  while  still  giving  suck.  But  the  erroneous  explanation  is  much  older, 
being  unambiguously  given  in  the  Septuagint  (fV  yaoTQl  i/^ovaag').  Aben 
Ezra  also  explains  r.ibs  as  synonymous  with  ^'i~f^,  whereas  Solomon  ben 
Melek  gives  the  correct  interpretation  (pip'^'Pri  pift'Sri).  The  essential 
meaning  of  brtr  is  admitted  to  be  that  of  leading  by  all  interpreters  ex- 
cepting Hengstenberg,  who  undertakes  to  show  that  it  always  has  reference 
to  sustenance.  (Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  Vol.  II.  p.  64.)  His  strongest 
argument  is  that  derived  from  Gen.  47  :  17;  but  he  seems  to  have  over 
looked  2  Chron.  28  :  15;  and  even  Ex.  15  :  13,  which  he  owns  to  be 
against  him,  cannot  be  satisfactorily  explained  on  his  hypothesis.  In  that 
case,  both  the  parallelism  and  the  construction  in  the  second  clause  are  de- 
cidedly in  favour  of  the  old  opinion,  from  which  there  seems,  upon  the 
whole,  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  departing.  From  the  primary  and 
simple  sense  of  leading  may  be  readily  deduced  that  of  carefully  leading  or 
conducting,  which  as  readily  suggests  the  accessory  idea  of  benignant  and 
affectionate  protection.  Henderson's  statement,  that  this  verse  and  the  one 
before  it  exhibit  certain  attributes  of  the  character  and  work  of  Christ  is 
correct,  but  too  restricted,  since  the  passage  is  descriptive  of  the  whole 
relation  which  Jehovah  sustains  to  his  people,  as  their  shepherd,  and  of  which 
inferior  but  real  exhibitions  were  afforded  long  before  the  advent  of  the 
Saviour;  for  example,  in  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  exile,  which  is  no 


CHAPTERXL.  ]3 

more  to  be  excluded  from  the  scope  of  this  prophetic  picture  than  to  be 
regarded  as  its  only  subject. 

V.  12.  Who  hath  measured  the  waters  in  the  hollow  of  his  hand,  and 
meted  out  heaven  with  the  span,  and  comprehended  in  a  measure  the  dust 
of  the  earth,  and  weighed  in  a  balance  the  mountains,  and  the  hills  in  scales? 
There  are  two  directly  opposite  opinions  as  to  the  general  idea  here  expressed. 
Gesenius  and  others  understand  the  question  as  an  indirect  negation  of  the 
possibility  of  doing  what  is  here  described.  The  implied  answer,  upon  this 
hypothesis,  is,  No  one,  and  the  verse  is  equivalent  to  the  exclamation.  How 
immense  are  the  works  of  God  !  The  other  and  more  usual  interpretation 
understands  the  question  thus  :  Who  (but  God)  has  measured  or  can  measure 
etc.  ?  Thus  understood,  the  verse,  so  far  from  affirming  the  immensity  of 
God's  works,  represents  them  as  little  in  comparison  with  him,  who  measures 
and  distributes  them  with  perfect  ease.  The  first  explanation  derives  some 
countenance  from  the  analogy  of  the  next  verse,  where  the  question  cer- 
tainly involves  an  absolute  negation,  and  is  tantamount  to  saying,  that  no  one 
does  or  can  do  what  is  there  described.  But  this  consideration  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  outweigh  the  argument  in  favour  of  the  other  explanation,  arising 
from  its  greater  simplicity  and  obviousness  in  this  connexion.  It  is  also 
well  observed  by  Hitzig,  that  in  order  to  convey  the  idea  of  immensity,  the 
largest  measures,  not  the  smallest,  would  have  been  employed.  An  object 
might  be  too  large  to  be  weighed  in  scales,  or  held  in  the  hollow  of  a  man's 
hand,  and  yet  very  far  from  being  immense  or  even  vast  in  its  dimensions. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  smallness  of  the  measure  is  entirely  appropriate  as 
showing  the  immensity  of  God  himself,  who  can  deal  with  the  whole  universe 
as  man  deals  with  the  most  minute  and  trivial  objects. — bsiu  is  properly  a 
handful  (1  Kings  20  :  10.  Ezek.  13  :  19),  but  is  here  put  for  the  receptacle 
or  measure  of  that  quantity. — By  waters  we  are  not  to  understand  specifi- 
cally either  the  ocean  (Grotius)  or  the  waters  above  the  firmament  (Rosen- 
miiller),  but  water  as  a  constituted  element  or  portion  of  the  globe. — The 
primary  meaning  of  ')3Pi  is  supposed  by  Gesenius  to  be  that  of  weighing,  here 
transferred  to  the  measure  of  extension.  Maurer,  with  more  probability, 
regards  it  as  a  generic  term  for  measurement,  including  that  of  weight, 
capacity,  and  extension. — The  span  is  mentioned  as  a  natural  and  universal 
measure  of  length,  to  which  Ave  must  likewise  apply  Jerome's  translation 
(tribus  digitis),  and  not,  as  Gill  imagines,  to  the  quantity  of  dust  which  "a 
man  can  hold  between  his  thumb  and  two  fingers." — In  every  other  place 
where  ^3  occurs,  it  is  the  construct  or  abbreviated  form  of  bb,  the  nearest 
equivalent  to  our  all,  but  uniformly  construed  as  a  noun,  meaning  properly 
the  whole  of  any  thing.  The  Septuagint  translates  it  so  in  this  case  likewise 
(naaav  ttjv  yijv),  and  Gesenius,  in  his  Lehrgebaude  (p.  675),  gives  it  as  one 


14  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L. 

of  the  cases  in  which  the  governing  and  governed  noun  are  separated  by  an 
intervening  word.  In  quoting  the  Hebrew  he  inadvertently  inserts  a  makkeph 
(i-'bii'^-^ri),  thus  conforming  the  orthography  to  tlie  usual  analogy.  But 
having  afterwards  observed  that  the  Hebrew  text  has  ^3  with  a  conjunctive 
accent,  he  corrected  the  error  in  his  lexicon  and  commentary,  and  referred 
the  word  to  the  root  ^^^,  which  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  Kal,  but  the 
essential  idea  of  which,  as  appears  from  the  Chaldee  and  Arabic  analogy, 
as  well  as  from  its  own  derivatives  in  Hebrew,  is  that  of  measuring,  or  rather 
that  of  holding  and  containing,  which  agrees  exactly  with  the  common  En- 
glish version  (comprehended).  It  is  a  curious  and  characteristic  circumstance, 
that  Hitzig,  in  his  note  upon  this  passage,  revives  the  explanation  which 
Gesenius  had  given  by  mistake  and  afterwards  abandoned,  appealing  to  Ps. 
35  :  10  as  an  example  of  the  use  of  ^3  (all)  with  a  conjunctive  accent,  and 
to  Isaiah  3S  :  16  as  an  instance  of  its  separation  from  the  dependent  noun. 
To  this  unexpected  defence  of  his  own  inadvertent  error,  Gesenius  replies  in 
his  Thesaurus  (II.  665)  that  clear  expressions  are  not  to  be  elucidated  by 
the  analogy  of  dark  ones,  and  that  a  verb  is  needed  here  to  balance  the 
verbs  measure,  mete,  and  weigh,  in  the  other  clauses. — The  terms  used  in 
the  English  Bible,  scales  and  balance,  are  retained  above  but  transposed,  in 
order  to  adhere  more  closely  to  the  form  of  the  original,  in  which  the  first  word 
is  a  singular  (denoting  properly  an  apparatus  like  the  steelyard),  while  the 
other  is  a  dual,  strictly  denoting  a  pair  of  scales.  This  is  in  fact  the  etymo- 
logical import  of  balance,  according  to  the  usual  explanation  of  the  Latin 
bilunx,  as  denoting  a  double  dish  or  plate  ;  but  be  this  as  it  may,  the  English 
balance  does  not  at  once  and  of  necessity  suggest  the  form  of  the  instrument 
like  scales. — The  dust  of  the  earth  seems  to  be  here  put  for  the  earth  itself, 
and  is  therefore  not  erroneously  though  freely  rendered  in  the  Vulgate, 
tnolem  terra,  tb'^hia  is  properly  a  third,  i.  e.  the  third  of  another  measure, 
probably  the  ephah,  which  is  often  rendered  in  the  Septuagint  rqla  fAtzga, 
while  the  seah  is  translated  fu'T{)ov.  The  name  is  analogous  to  quart  (mean- 
ing fourth),  and  exactly  coincident  with  tierce,  which  Skinner  defines  to  be 
"  a  measure  so  called  because  the  third  part  (triens)  of  another  measure 
called  a  pipe,"  but  which  is  also  used  in  old  English  writers  for  the  third 
part  of  other  measures.  (See  Richardson's  Dictionary,  p.  1910.)  The 
ephah,  according  to  the  best  computation,  was  equivalent  to  one  Italian  mo- 
dius  and  a  half.  J.  D.  Michaelis  is  probably  singular  in  thinking  it  necessary 
to  express  the  value  of  the  measure  in  translation,  by  making  the  Prophet 
ask,  who  measures  the  dust  of  the  earth  with  the  third  part  of  a  bushel. 
This  is  not  only  in  bad  taste,  but  hurtful  to  the  sense  ;  because  the  literal 
comprehension  of  the  earth  in  this  specific  measure  is  impossible,  and  all  that 
the  words  were  intended  to  suggest  is  a  comparison  between  the  customary 
measurement  of  common  things  by  man,  and  the  analogous  control  which  is 


CHAPTERXL.  15 

exercised  by  God  over  all  his  works.  For  this  end  the  general  sense  of 
measure,  which  the  word  has  in  Ps.  80 :  6,  and  which  is  given  to  it  here  by 
the  Targum  (yh^z-z),  is  entirely  sufficient.  The  exact  size  of  the  ui-bd  is  of 
no  more  importance  to  the  exposition  than  that  of  the  balance  or  the  scales. 
— The  idea  of  accurate  exact  adjustment  which  by  some  interpreters  is 
thought  to  be  included  in  the  meaning  of  this  verse,  if  expressed  at  all,  is 
certainly  not  prominent,  the  main  design  of  the  description  being  simply  to 
exhibit,  not  the  power  or  the  wisdom  of  God  as  distinguishable  attributes, 
but  rather  the  supreme  control  in  which  they  are  both  exercised. — Ewald 
connects  this  verse  with  the  argument  that  follows,  by  suggesting  as  the 
answer  to  the  question,  that  certainly  no  man,  and  much  less  the  image  of  a 
man,  could  do  what  is  here  described. — Umbreit  connects  it  with  what  goes 
before  by  supposing  the  Prophet  to  affirm  that  the  gracious  shepherd,  just 
before  described,  is  at  the  same  time  all-wise  and  omnipotent,  and  therefore 
able  to  make  good  the  promise  of  protection  to  his  people. 

V.  13.  Who  hath  measured  the  spirit  of  Jehovah,  and  {who,  as)  the 
man  of  his  counsel,  ivill  teach  him  (or  cause  him  to  hnow)  ]  According  to 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  the  connexion  between  this  verse  and  the  one  before  it  is, 
that  he  who  can  do  the  one  can  do  the  other  ;  if  any  one  can  weigh  the 
hills  etc.,  he  can  also  measure  the  divine  intelligence.  But  the  natural  con- 
nexion seems  to  be,  that  he  who  weighs  the  hills  etc.  must  himself  be  inde- 
pendent, boundless,  and  unsearchable. — The  various  explanations  of  '{37\  as 
meaning  known,  instructed,  prepared,  directed,  searched,  etc.  are  mere 
substitutions  of  what  ought  to  have  been  said  (in  the  interpreter's  opinion) 
for  what  is  said.  Although  not  impossible,  it  is  highly  improbable  that  the 
word  should  have  a  different  meaning  here  from  that  which  it  evidently  has 
in  the  foregoing  verse,  where  the  sense  is  determined  by  the  mention  of  the 
span.  What  seems  to  be  denied  is  the  possibility  of  limiting  or  estimating 
the  divine  intelligence. — According  to  Calvin,  we  are  not  to  understand  by 
in^ii  here  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  a  person  of  the  Godhead,  but  the  mind  or  intel- 
lect of  God.  The  Targum  arbitrarily  explains  it  as  denoting  the  Holy 
Spirit  (i.  e.  inspiration)  in  the  mouth  of  all  the  prophets. — The  last  clause 
is  not  an  answer  to  the  first,  but  a  continuation  of  the  question.  Most  inter- 
preters suppose  the  who  to  be  repeated.  Luther  and  Rosenmiiller  make  it 
agree  directly  with  the  following  phrase.  {What  counsellor  etc.)  The  latest 
writers  make  the  construction  relative  as  well  as  interrogative.  Who  was 
(or  is)  the  counsellor  that  taught  him  1  A  simpler  construction  is  that  o-iven 
in  our  Bible,  which  supplies  neither  interrogative  nor  relative  :  and  (being) 
his  counsellor,  or  {as)  his  counsellor,  hath  taught  him.  The  translation  of 
the  last  verb  as  a  preterite  is  entirely  arbitrary.  Both  tenses  seem  to  have 
been  used,  as  in  many  other  cases,  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  implied 


16  CIIAPTERXL. 

negation  more  exclusive.  JVho  has,  and  who  will  or  can? — Evvald,  reject- 
ing the  usual  combination  of  ma7i  with  counsel  in  the  sense  of  counsellor, 
makes  one  the  subject  anil  the  other  the  object  of  the  verb  :  'and  reveals — 
though  a  man — his  counsel  to  him.'  The  same  construction  seems  to  be  at 
least  as  old  as  Arias  JMontanus,  who  translates  the  clause,  vir  consilium  ejus 
scire  faciei  cum.  In  favour  of  the  usual  interpretation  is  its  greater  simpli- 
city, and  the  occurrence  of  the  plural  form,  the  men  of  my  counsel,  in  the 
obvious  sense  of  counsellors,  in  Ps.  119:  24. — Lowth's  translation  (one  of 
his  council)  gives  a  sense  to  nsr  not  sustained  by  usage,  and  Barnes's  modi- 
fication of  it  (^onc  of  his  counsel)  introduces  an  idea  wholly  modern  and  irre- 
levant.— Calvin  supposes  that  the  Prophet,  having  spoken  of  the  goodness  of 
God  in  V.  II,  and  of  his  power  in  v.  12,  here  proceeds  to  magnify  his  wis- 
dom. But  both  these  verses  are  designed  alike  to  set  forth  his  supremacy 
and  independence,  by  describing  him  as  measuring  and  regulating  all  things, 
while  himself  incapable  either  of  measurement  or  regulation. 

V.  14.  Whom  did  he  consult  (or  with  whom  tooh:  he  counsel)  and  he 
made  him  understand,  and  taught  him  in  the  path  of  judgment,  and  taught 
him  knowledge,  and  the  tvay  of  understanding  (who)  will  make  him  knoiv  ? 
The  consecution  of  the  tenses  is  the  same  as  in  the  foregoing  verse.  The 
indirect  construction  of  the  second  and  following  verbs,  by  Lowth  and  the 
later  German  writers  (that  he  should  instruct  him  etc.),  is  not  only  forced, 
but  inconsistent  with  the  use  of  the  conversive  future,  and  a  gratuitous  sub- 
stitution of  an  occidental  idiom  for  the  somewhat  harsh  but  simple  Hebrew 
syntax,  in  which  the  object  of  the  first  verb  is  the  subject  of  the  second. 
What  man  did  he  (the  Lord)  consult,  and  he  (the  man)  7nade  him  (the 
Lord)  to  understand  etc.  The  sense  is  given,  with  but  little  change  of 
form,  in  the  English  Version,  by  repeating  the  interrogative  pronoun.  With 
whom  took  he  counsel,  and  (who)  instructed  him  or  made  him  understand  1 — 
The  preposition  before  path  is  understood  by  Hitzig,  Ewald,  and  Umbreit, 
as  denoting  the  subject  of  instruction :  taught  him  respecting  or  concerning 
(iibcr)  the  path  of  judgment.  Gesenius  and  Hendewerk  regard  it  as  a  mere 
connective  of  the  verb  with  its  object:  taught  him  the  path  etc.  But  the 
most  satisfactory  explanation  is  the  one  proposed  by  Knobel,  who  attaches 
to  the  verb  the  sense  of  guiding,  and  retains  the  proper  meaning  of  the  par- 
ticle. This  is  confirmed  by  the  analogy  of  the  synonymous  verb  tTiin,  which 
originally  means  to  guide,  and  is  also  construed  with  the  same  preposition 
(Ps.  32  :  8.  Prov.  4  :  1 1). — Hy  judgment  we  must  either  understand  discre- 
tion, in  which  case  the  whole  phrase  will  be  synonymous  with  ivay  of 
understanding  in  the  parallel  clause ;  or  rectitude,  in  which  case  the  whole 
phrase  will  mean  the  right  way,  not  in  a  moral  sense,  but  in  that  of  a  way 
conducting  to  the  end  desired,  the  right  way  to  attain  that  end.     As  these 


CHAPTERXL.  17 

are  only  different  expressions  of  the  same  essential  idea,  the  question  is  of 
little  exegetical  importance. — The  plural  -^D-zn,  literally  understandings,  is 
not  an  Arabism,  as  Knobel  elsewhere  affirms  of  this  whole  class  of  words, 
but  a  genuine  Hebrew  idiom,  denoting  fulness  or  an  eminent  degree  of  the 
quality  in  question,  just  as  ni:::n  is  used  in  the  book  of  Proverbs  to  denote 
the  highest  wisdom,  the  sajnentia  hypostatica.  (See  Hengstenberg  on  the 
Pentateuch,  vol.  i.  p.  258,  and  on  the  Psalms,  vol.  ii.  p.  459.) — Jarchi, 
with  characteristic  nationality,  regards  this  as  a  contrast,  not  between  God 
and  man,  but  between  Israel  and  other  nations  :  '  With  which  of  the  gentiles 
did  he  take  counsel  as  he  did  with  the  prophets,  as  it  is  said  of  Abraham,  The 
Lord  said.  Shall  I  hide  from  Abraham  what  I  am  about  to  do  ?' — Junius 
and  Tremellius  make  the  first  verb  reciprocal  and  all  the  rest  reflexive 
(^Cum  quo  communicavit  consilium,  ut  instrueret  se  etc.?),  which  is  wholly 
gratuitous  and  forced. — The  first  clause  of  this  verse  is  quoted  in  Rom. 
1 1  :  34,  with  the  following  words  added,  or  who  hath  first  given  to  him, 
and  it  shall  be  recompensed  unto  him  again  1  As  this  addition  is  also  found 
in  the  Alexandrian  text  of  the  Septuagint,  J.  D.  Michaelis  infers  that  it  has 
dropped  out  of  the  Hebrew.  It  is  more  probable,  however,  that  the  words 
were  introduced  into  the  Septuagint  from  the  text  in  Romans,  where  they 
are  really  no  part  of  the  quotation  from  Isaiah,  but  the  apostle's  own  para- 
phrase of  it  or  addition  to  it,  the  form  of  which  may  have  been  suggested 
by  the  first  clause  of  Job  41  :  3  (in  the  English  Bible  41  :  11).  Such  allu- 
sive imitations  occur  elsewhere  in  Paul's  writings.  (See  the  remarks  on 
1  Cor.  1  :  20,  and  its  connexion  with  Isaiah  33  :  18,  in  the  Earlier  Prophe- 
cies, p.  551.)  In  the  present  case,  the  addition  agrees  fully  with  the  spirit 
of  the  passage  quoted  ;  since  the  aid  in  question,  if  it  had  been  afibrded, 
would  be  fairly  entitled  to  a  recompense. 

V.  15.  Lo,  nations  as  a  drop  from  a  bucket,  and  as  dust  on  scales  are 
reckoned ;  lo,  islands  as  an  atom  he  ivill  take  up.  He  is  independent,  not 
only  of  nature  and  of  individual  men,  but  of  nations.  The  Septuagint 
gives  iri  the  Chaldee  sense  of  if,  leaving  the  sentence  incomplete,  notwith- 
standing the  attempts  of  the  modern  editors  to  carry  the  construction 
through  several  verses.  By  supplying  arc  in  the  first  clause,  the  English 
Version  impairs  the  compact  strength  of  the  expression.  Both  members  of 
the  clause  are  to  be  construed  with  the  verb  at  the  end.  This  verb  De 
Wette  and  Hendewerk  explain  as  meaning  are  to  be  reckoned  (sind  zu 
achten) ;  but  although  this  future  sense  is  common  in  the  Niphal  participle, 
it  is  not  to  be  assumed  in  the  preterite  without  necessity.  The  sense  is 
rather  that  they  are  already  so  considered.  Luther  gives  "'^'^^.  152  the  sense 
of  a  drop  remaining  in  a  bucket  when  the  water  is  poured  out,  correspond- 

2 


18  CHAPTERXL. 

ing  to  the  parallel  expression  of  an  atom  which  remains  in  the  balance  after 
any  thing  is  weighed,  llitzig  also  translates  the  last  word  in  the  bucket  (im 
Eimcr).  Maurer  gives  the  strict  translation  from  a  bucket,  and  supposes 
hanging  to  be  understood  ((/e  situla  pendens).  But  as  this  is  not  an  ob- 
vious ellipsis,  it  is  better  to  explain  the  "i":  as  simply  expressing  the  propor- 
tion of  the  drop  to  the  contents  of  the  bucket,  a  drop  out  of  a  whole  bucket. 
Next  to  this,  the  simplest  explanation  is  the  one  suggested  in  the  English 
Version,  which  seems  to  take  the  phrase  as  an  indirect  expression  for  a  drop 
of  ivater.  But  as  the  mention  of  the  bucket  would  in  that  case  be  super- 
fluous, the  other  explanation  is  entitled  to  the  preference.  Dust  of  the 
scales  or  balance,  i.  e.  dust  resting  on  it,  but  without  affecting  its  equili- 
brium. The  Vulgate  version  (momcntuvi  staterae)  seems  directly  to  reverse 
the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  in  which  the  dust  is  obviously  spoken  of  as 
having  no  appreciable  weight.  The  exegetical  tradition  is  decisive  in 
favour  of  explaining  pn"4  to  mean  fine  dust,  while  the  uniform  usage  of  the 
word  in  other  cases  would  require  the  sense  of  cloud.  It  is  possible  indeed 
that  the  image  which  the  prophet  intended  to  suggest  was  that  of  a  cloud  in 
the  balance,  the  idea  of  extreme  levity  being  then  conveyed  by  comparison 
with  the  weight  of  what  is  commonly  regarded  as  imponderable.  The 
weight  of  authority  is  all  in  favour  of  the  other  sense,  which  may  be  readily 
connected  with  the  common  one,  by  supposing  P~d  to  mean  first  a  cloud  in 
general,  then  a  cloud  of  dust  in  particular,  and  then  dust  in  general,  or  more 
specifically  fine  minute  dust.  P'n  ,  from  Pp^  to  crush  or  pulverize,  denotes 
any  minute  portion  of  a  solid  substance,  and  in  this  connexion  may  be  well 
expressed  by  atojn.  The  Seventy  seem  to  have  mistaken  it  for  p"i ,  saliva, 
spittle,  and  translate  it  ai'tloi;.  Gesenius  gives  d^'sn  the  general  sense  of 
lands,  and  then  notes  this  usage  of  the  word  as  a  sign  of  later  date.  But 
why  may  not  islands,  in  the  strict  sense,  be  intended  here  as  much  as  hills 
and  mountains  in  v.  12  ?  The  only  objection  is  founded  on  the  parallelism  :. 
but  this  is  imperfect,  even  if  we  give  D"'!'i<  its  widest  sense.  J.  D.  Michaelis 
goes  to  the  opposite  extreme,  by  making  it  mean  Europe  and  Asia  Minor. 
Rabbi  Jonah  explains  V'i^'^  as  the  Niphal  of  ^^'-^  to  throw  or  cast,  and  this 
explanation  is  retained  by  Knobel.  In  like  manner,  Aquila  has  lenrhv  ^al- 
KOfifiov.  But  most  interpreters  agree  in  making  it  the  future  Kal  of  biaj. 
which  in  Syriac  and  Chaldee  means  to  raise  or  lift  up.  On  the  former  sup- 
position, it  must  either  agree  irregularly  with  the  plural  islands,  or  with  a 
relative  to  be  supplied  (like  an  atom  which  is  cast  away).  This  last  con- 
struction is  consistent  also  with  the  other  derivation  of  the  verb.  Thus 
Rosenmi'iller  has,  quem  iollit  tollcns  ;  and  Maurer,  which  it  (the  wind)  car- 
ries off.  But  the  simplest  construction  is  the  one  which  makes  C'l'S  the 
direct  object  of  the  verb,  as  in  the  English  Version.  Ewald  gives  the  verb 
itself  the  sense  of  poising,  weighing,  which  is  too  specific. 


CHAPTERXL.  19 

V.  16.  And  Lebanon  is  not  enough  fo?-  hurning,  and  its  beasts  are  not 
enovgh  for  a  sacrifice.     The  supremacy  and  majesty  of  God  are  now  pre- 
sented in  a  more  religious  aspect,  by  expressions  borrowed  from  the  Mosaic 
ritual.     He  is  not  only  independent  of  the  power  but  also  of  the  good-will 
of  his  creatures.     This  general  allusion  to  oblation,  as  an  act  of  homage  or  of 
friendship,  suits  the  connexion  better  than  a  specific  reference  to  expiation. 
The  insufticiency  of  these  offerings  is  set  forth,  not  in  a  formal  proposition, 
but  by  means  of  a  striking  individualization.     For  general  terms  he  substi- 
tutes one  striking  instance,  and  asserts  of  that  what  might  be  asserted  of  the 
rest.     If  Lebanon  could  not  suffice,  what  could  ?     The  imagery  here  used 
is  justly  described  by  Umbreit  as  magnificent :  nature  the  temple  ;  Lebanon 
the   altar ;   its   lordly   woods   the   pile  ;   its   countless   beasts  the   sacrifice. 
There  is  a  strong  idiomatic  peculiarity  of  form  in  this  verse.     ')''>?  and  '^'n  are 
properly  both  nouns  in  the  construct  state,  the  first  meaning  non-existence 
and  the  other  sufficiency.     The  nearest  approach  in  English  to  the  form  of 
the  original  is  nothing  of  sufficiency  of  burning ;  but  ')"'X,  as  usual,  includes 
or  indicates  the  verb  of  existence,  and  '^^  is  followed  by  a  noun  expressive 
of  the  end  for  which  a  thing  is  said  to  be  or  not  to  be  sufficient.     Clericus 
and  RosenmiiUer  give  ^*->,^  the  sense  of  kindling,  which  it  sometimes  has 
(e.  g.  Ex.  35 :  3.  Lev.  6:5);  but  as  this  diffeis  from  burning  only  in  being 
limited  to  the  inception  of  the  process,  and  as  it  seems  more  natural  to  speak 
of  wood  enough  to  burn  than  of  wood  enough  to  kindle,  there  is  no  cause  of 
departing  from  the  usual  interpretation.     The  collective  .i;jn   (^animal  for 
animals'),  having  no  equivalent  in  English,  although  common  in  Hebrew, 
can  be  represented  only  by  a  plural. — ^Y^^  's  ^he  technical  name  appropri- 
ated in  the  law  of  Moses  to  the  ordinary  sacrifice  for  general  expiation.     It 
seems  to  denote  strictly  an  ascension  or  ascent,  being  so  called,  either  from 
the  mounting  of  the  vapour,  or  from  the  ascent  of  the  w^hole  victim  on  the 
altar.     As  the  phrase  by  which  it  is  commonly  translated  in  the  English 
Bible  (burnt-offering)  is  not  an  exact  etymological  equivalent,  and  as  no 
stress  seems  to  be  laid  here  upon  the  species  of  oblation,  the  general  term 
offering  or  sacrifice  would  seem  to  be  sufficiently  specific.      (Compare  with 
this  verse  ch.  66 :  L   1  Kings  8 :  27.  2  Chr.  6  :  18.  Ps.  50:  8-13.) 

V.  17.  All  the  nations  as  nothing  before  him,  less  than  nothing  and 
vanity  are  counted  to  him.  The  proposition  of  v.  15  is  repeated,  but  in  still 
more  absolute  and  universal  terms.  Instead  of  nations,  he  says  all  the 
nations ;  instead  of  likening  them  to  grains  of  sand  or  drops  of  water,  he 
denies  their  very  being.  Before  him  does  not  simply  mean  in  his  view  or 
estimation,  but  in  comparison  with  him,  the  primary  import  of  "i^?  being  such 
as  to  suggest  the  idea  of  two  objects  brought  together  or  confronted  for  the 
purpose  of  comparison.     So  too  the  parallel  expression  ib  does  not  mean  hy 


20  CHAPTERXL. 

him  (which  is  seldom,  if  ever,  so  expressed  in  Hebrew),  but  ivith  respect  to 
him,  or  simply  to  him  in  the  same  sense  as  when  we  say  that  one  thing  or 
person  is  nothing  to  another,  i.  e.  not  to  be  compared  with  it.     The  same 
use  of  to,  even  without  a  negative,  is  clear  from  such  expressions  as  "  Hype- 
rion to  a  Satyr."     That  God  is  the  arbiter  who  thus  decides  between  him- 
self and  his  creatures,  is  still  implied  in  both  the  phrases,  although  not  the 
sole  or  even   prominent  idea  meant  to  be  expressed  by  either. — The  struc- 
ture of  the  sentence  is  exactly  like  that  of  the  first  clause  of  v.  15,  and  the 
same  remark  is  applicable,  as  to  the  insertion  of  the  substantive  verb  in  the 
English  Version. — The  particle  as  may  either  be  a  mere  connective,  reck- 
oned as  nothing,  i.  e.  reckoned  for  or  reckoned    to  he   nothing,  which  is 
rather  an  English  than  a  Hebrew  idiom,  or  it  may  serve  to  soften  the  expres- 
sion by  suggesting  that  it  is  not  to  be  literally  understood,  in  which  case  it 
is  nearly  equivalent  to  as  it  ivcre.     So  the  Vulgate:   quasi  non  sint,  sic  sunt 
coram  eo. — The  etymological  distinction  between   ■'^vX  and  C3x  is  that  the 
latter  means  annihilation  or  the  end  of  being,  the  former  absolute  nonentity. 
In  this  case,  the  weaker  term  is  assimilated  to  the  stronger  by  the  addition 
of  another  word,  denoting  desolation  or  emptiness,  and  here  used  as  a  formula 
of  intense  negation. — The  preposition  before  osx  is  explained  by  some  as 
connective  of  the  verb  with  its  object,  reckoned  for  nothing ;  which  con- 
struction seems  to  be  as  old  as  the  Septuagint  (4'  oidtv  iloyi'aOijaui),  but 
is  not  sufficiently  sustained  by  the  usage  of  the   Hebrew  particle.     Others 
make  it  an  expression  of  resemblance,  like  the  Vulgate  [quasi  nihilmn)  ; 
which  seems  to  be  a  mere  conjecture  from  the  parallelism,  and  is  equally  at 
variance  with   usage.     Calvin  (followed  by  the  English  Version,  Clericus, 
Vitrino-a,  Umbreit,  and  Ewald  in  the  first  edition  of  his  Grammar)  makes 
the  "i-  comparative,  and  understands  the  phrase  as  meaning  less  than  nothing. 
To  this  it  is  objected  by  Gesenius,  that  it  does  not  suit  the   parallelism  (a 
virtual  assertion   that  a  climax  is  impossible  in  Hebrew  composition),  and 
that   the  idea  is  too  far-fetched   {zu  gesucht)  ;  to  which  Hitzig  adds  that 
there  is  no  word  to  mean  less,  and  that  if  the  "|*3  were  really  comparative,  the 
phrase  would  necessarily  mean  more   than  nothing.     These  objections  are 
renewed  by  Knobel,  without  any  notice  of  Umbreit's  answer   to  the   last, 
viz.  that  the  idea  of  minority  is  suggested  by  the  context;  that  less  than 
nothing  could  not  well  be  otherwise  expressed  ;  and  that  even  if  it  meant 
more  than  nothing,  it  would  still  be  an  equivalent  expression,  meaning  more 
of  nothing  than  nothing  itself.     Gesenius,  in  his  Commentary,  makes  the  1^ 
an  expletive  or  pleonastic  particle,  of  common  use  in   Arabic,  so  that  the 
phrase  means  simply  nothing.     But  in   his  Lexicons  he  agrees  with  Hitzig 
and  Maurer  in  giving  it  a  partitive  sense,  of  nothing,  i.  e.  a  part  of  nothing, 
which,  as  Hitzig  says,  is  here  conceived  of  as  a  great  concrete  or  aggregate 
of  which  the  thing  in  question  is  a  portion.     But  as  the  whole  must  be 


CHAPTERXL.  21 

greater  than  the  part,  this  explanation  is  essentially  identical  with  Calvin's 
(less  than  nothing),  which  Gesenius  admits,  but  still  objects  to  the  latter,  as 
being  less  poetical  than  mathematical.  The  reader  may  determine  for  him- 
self whether  it  is  any  more  gesucht  than  that  preferred  to  it,  or  than  that 
proposed  by  Hendewerk,  who  seems  to  understand  the  "i^  as  indicating  the 
material  or  source,  as  if  he  had  said,  (made  ov  produced)  out  of  nothing  and 
vanity.  The  common  ground  assumed  by  all  these  explanations  is,  that  the 
verse  contains  the  strongest  possible  expression  of  insignificance  and  even 
non-existence,  as  predicable  even  of  whole  nations,  in  comparison  with  God, 
and  in  his  presence. 

V.  18.  And  (jioiv)  to  lohom  will  ye  liken  God,  and  what  likeness  will 
ye  compare  to  him?  The  inevitable  logical  conclusion  from  the  previous 
considerations  is  that  God  is  One  apd  that  there  is  no  other.  From  this,  the 
prophet  now  proceeds  to  argue,  that  it  is  folly  to  compare  God  even  with  the 
most  exalted  creature,  how  much  more  with  lifeless  matter.  The  logical 
relation  of  this  verse  to  what  precedes,  although  not  indicated  in  the  text, 
may  be  rendered  clearer  by  the  introduction  of  an  illative  particle  {then, 
therefore,  etc.),  or  more  simply  by  inserting  noiv,  which  is  often  used  in 
such  connexions.  (See  for  example  Ps.  2:10,  and  Hengstenberg's  Com- 
mentary, vol.  I.  p.  44.)  The  last  clause  admits  of  two  constructions,  both 
amountino;  to  the  same  thing  in  the  end.  What  likeness  or  resemblance 
(i.  e.  what  similar  object)  will  ye  compare  to  him  ?  Or,  what  comparison 
will  ye  institute  respecting  him  ?  The  last  agrees  best  with  the  usage  of  the 
verb,  as  meaning  to  arrange,  prepare,  or  set  in  order  (to  compare,  only  indi- 
rectly and  by  implication)  ;  while  at  the  same  time  it  avoids  the  unusual 
combination  of  comparing  a  likeness  to  a  thing  or  person,  instead  of  com- 
paring the  two  objects  for  the  purpose  of  discovering  their  likeness. — The 
use  of  the  divine  name  ^x  (expressive  of  omnipotence)  is  here  emphatic  and 
significant,  as  a  preparation  for  the  subsequent  exposure  of  the  impotence  of 
idols.  The  force  of  the  original  expression  is  retained  in  Vitringa's  version 
(Deumfortem). 

V.  19.  The  image  a  carver  has  ivrought,  and  a  gilder  U'ith  gold  shall 
overlay  it,  and  chains  of  silver  (he  is)  casting.  The  ambiguous  construc- 
tion of  the  first  clause  is  the  same  in  the  original,  where  we  may  either  sup- 
ply a  relative,  or  make  it  a  distinct  proposition.  In  favour  of  the  first,  which 
is  a  frequent  ellipsis  both  in  Hebrew  and  English,  is  the  fact,  that  the  verse 
then  contains  a  direct  answer  to  the  question  in  the  one  before  it.  What 
have  you  to  set  over  against  such  a  God  ?  The  image  which  an  ordinary 
workman  manufactures.  It  enables  us  also  to  account  for  the  position  of  the 
image  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence,  and  for  its  having  the  definite  article, 


22  CII  AP  T  E  R    XL. 

while  the  following  nouns  have  none,  both  which  forms  of  expression  seem 
to  be  significant,  the  image  wiiich  a  icorkman  (i.  e,  any  woiknian)  can  pro- 
duce.— The  consecution  of  the  tenses  seems  to  show,  that  the  writer  takes 
his  stand  between  the  commencement  and  the  end  of  the  process,  and 
describes  it  as  actually  going  on.  The  carver  has  already  wrought  the  image, 
and  the  gilder  is  about  to  overlay  it. — There  is  a  seeming  incongruity 
between  the  strict  etymological  senses  of  the  nouns  and  verb  in  this  clause: 
vi'^n  is  properly  a  carver,  and  bca  a  carved  or  graven  image  ;  whereas  7^553,  as 
descri])tive  of  a  process  of  art,  can  only  mean  to  melt,  cast,  or  found.  This 
can  only  be  accounted  for  upon  tlie  supposition,  that  the  verb,  or  the  nouns, 
or  both,  have  acquired  in  usage  a  more  extensive  or  indefinite  meaning.  In 
the  translation  above  given,  the  discrepancy  has  been  removed  by  giving  to 
the  verb  the  general  sense  of  wrought,  and  to  the  first  noun  that  of  image, 
which  it  evidently  has  in  other  places,  where  a  contrast  is  exhibited  between 
God  and  idols,  of  course  without  regard  to  the  mode  of  their  formation.  (See 
for  example  ch.  42  :  8,  and  the  note  on  ch.  30 :  22  in  the  Earlier  Prophe- 
cies, p.  519.) — ~"i':i  is  properly  a  melter,  and  is  elsewhere  applied  both  to  the 
smelter  or  finer  of  metals  (Prov.  25  :  4)  and  to  the  founder  or  caster  of 
images  (Judges  17  :  4).  The  word  gilder,  although  not  an  exact  translation, 
has  been  used  above,  as  more  appropriate  in  this  connexion  than  the  common 
version,  goldsmith. — 'Jp_'^ ,  which  elsewhere  means  to  beat  out  metal  into  thin 
plates,  here  denotes  the  application  of  such  plates  as  an  ornamental  covering. 
Henderson  repeats  this  verb,  in  its  original  sense  of  beating  out,  before  chains 
of  silver.  Hitzig  and  Ewald  continue  the  construction  of  the  first  clause 
through  the  second,  and  take  rVii  as  a  noun,  repealed  for  the  sake  of  a  sar- 
castic effect.  (^And  ivith  silver  chains  the  goldsmith.^  A  similar  construc- 
tion had  before  been  given  by  Cocceius,  who  supplies  the  substantive  verb 
(e^  sunt  catenae  argcnteac  aurifabri).  But  the  different  mode  of  writing 
the  word  in  the  two  clauses  (^ni:  and  M';ii:J^  seems  to  favour  the  opinion  of 
Gesenius  and  most  other  writers,  that  the  latter  is  a  verbal  form.  Lowth 
reads  Ci'i^  in  the  preterite,  on  the  authority  of  twenty-seven  manuscripts  and 
three  editions.  Maurer  explains  it  as  the  Praeter  Poel,  of  which,  however, 
there  is  no  example  elsewhere.  Gesenius  regards  it  as  a  participle  used  for 
the  present  tense.  It  is  really  equivalent  to  our  continuous  or  com|)ound 
present,  denoting  what  is  actually  now  in  progress. — The  silver  chains  may 
be  considered  either  simply  ornamental,  or  as  intended  to  suspend  the  image 
and  prevent  its  falling. 

V.  20.  (^As  for)  the  (nian)  impoverished,  (by)  offering,  a  tree  (that) 
will  not  rot  he  chooses,  a  wise  carver  he  seeks  for  it,  to  set  up  an  image 
(that)  shall  not  be  moved.  While  the  rich  waste  their  gold  and  silver  upon 
idols,  the  poor  are  equally  extravagant  in  wood.     None  of  the  usual  mean 


CHAPTERXL.  23 

ings  ol  "iao  is  here  appropriate.     From  the  noun  ni:35^  (^treasures,  stores), 
Rabbi  Jonah  derives  the  sense  of  rich,  while  all  the   modern  writers  are 
agreed  in  giving  it  the  opposite  meaning,  although  doubtful  and  divided  as 
to  the  etymology.     As  the  form  is  evidently  that  of  a  participle  passive,  the 
best  translation  seems  to  be  impoverished,  and  the  best  construction  that 
proposed  by  Gesenius  in  his  Lehrgebaude  (p.  821),  impoverished  by  obla- 
tion or  religious  gifts.     It  is  true,  that  in  his  Commentary  and  Lexicons  he 
abandons  this  construction,  on  the  ground  of  an  objection  made  by  one  of 
his   reviewers,   that  it  does  not  suit  the  context,  and  adopts  the  one  which 
most  succeeding  writers  have  repeated,  viz.  poor  as  to  offering,  that  is,  too 
poor  to  make  a  costly  one,  or,  as  Cocceius  slightly   modifies  the  sense, 
frugalior  ohlalionis.     To  this  there  is  a  strong  philological  objection,  that 
n^^inpi,  though   a  very  common  word,  is  nowhere  else  applied  to  an  image, 
and  that  an  image  could  not  be  naturally  called  an  offering.     On  the  other 
hand,  the  objection  from  the  context,  so  submissively  allowed  by  Gesenius, 
is  not  only  vague  but  founded  on  a  superficial  view  of  the  connexion.     To 
say  that  the  poor  man  uses  wood  instead  of  gold  and  silver,  is  coherent  and 
appropriate,  but  far  less  significant  and  striking  than  to  say,  that  the  man 
who  has  already  reduced  himself  to  want   by  lavish  gifts  to  his  idol,   still 
continues  his  devotions,  and  as  he  no  longer  can  afford   an   image  of  the 
precious  metals,  is  resolved  at  least  to  have  a  durable  wooden  one.     Thus 
understood,  the  verse  adds  to  the  general  description  a  particular  trait  highly 
expressive  of  the  folly  of  idolaters.     This  desertion  by  Gesenius  of  his  first 
opinion  differs  from  that  mentioned  in  the  exposition  of  v.  12  in  this  respect, 
that  while  he  there  relinquishes  his  former  ground  as  having  been  assumed 
through  inadvertence  and  mistake,  he  here  continues  to  assert  that  what  he 
first  proposed  is  still  the  most  grammatical  construction  (as  evinced  by   the 
analogy  of  ch.  I  :  20.    1  Kings  22:  10.  Ex.  23  ;  11,  etc.),  but  abandons  it 
in  deference  to  an  unmeaning  and  gratuitous  objection.     The  obscurity  of 
this  phrase,  even  to  the  ancient  writers,  is  apparent  from  its  omission  in  the 
Septuagint  and  Vulgate,  and  from  Jerome's  explanation  of  amsuchau  as  a 
kind  of  wood. — In  the  next  clause,  the  Vulgate  makes  -zr\  m-\n  the  subject 
of  the  verb  (^artifcx  sapiens  quatrit  quomodo  etc.)  :   but  the  common   con- 
struction is  more  natural,  because  it  makes  the  conduct  of  the  devotee  still 
the  subject  of  description.      Wise  is  here  used  in  what  appears  to  be  its  pri- 
mary  meaning  of  artistically  skilful.      (See  the  note  on  ch.  3:3,  E.  P. 
p.  42.)     15  may  either  be  reflexive  (for  himself) ,  as  some  consider  it  in  v.  1 1 
and  as  all  admit  T^^  to  be  in   v.  9,  or  it  may  be  referred  to  ■]'?.     Havino^ 
secured  the  stuff,  he  seeks  for  it  a  skilful  workman.     As  yv  is  an  obvious 
antecedent,  and  as  the  reflexive  use  of  the  pronouns  is  comparatively  rare, 
this  last  construction  seems  entitled  to  the  preference. — Allhough  to  prepare 
is  a  very  common  meaning  of  T^rfi,  its  primary  sense  of  setting  upright  or 


24  CHAPTERXL. 

erecting  is  entitled  to  the  preference,  not  only  upon  etymological  grounds, 
but  because  it  agrees  better  with  the  following  expression,  a'sa"]  xb,  which 
stands  in  antithesis,  not  to  the  preparation  of  the  image,  but  to  its  erection 
or  establishment,  in  which  the  previous  preparation  is  of  course  implied, — 
As  kinds  of  wood  regarded  by  the  ancients  as  peculiarly  durable,  Grotius 
enumerates  the  cypress,  grape-vine,  juniper,  and  mulberry;  Rosenmiiller 
the  olive,  cedar,  fir,  and  oak  ;  to  which  Gesenius  adds  the  lotus  and  the  fig- 
tree.  There  is  no  need,  however,  of  supposing  a  specific  reference  to  any 
one  or  more  of  these  varieties. 

V.  21.    Will  you  not  Icnotvl  ivill  you  not  hearl  has  it  not  heen  told 
you  from  the  first  1  have  you  not  understood  the  foundations  (or  from  the 
foundations)  of  the  earth  1     The  tenses  of  the  verbs  in  the  first  clause  have 
been  variously  and  arbitrarily  explained  by  different  interpreters.     The  En- 
glish Version  and  some  others  exchange  both  the  futures  for  praeters  (fiave 
ye  not  Tcnown?  have  ye  not  heard!)  without  any  satisfactory  reason  or 
authority.     So  far  is  such  a  reason  from  being  afforded  by  the  addition  of  the 
preterite  irvti  in  this  place,  or  the  use  of  the  praeters  n^']^  and  n:^':©  in  v.  28, 
that  it  rather  proves  the  contrary  and  makes  it  necessary  to  retain  the  strict 
sense  of  the  futures.     Still  more  capricious  is  the  explanation  of  the  first  verb 
as  a  present  and  the  second   as  a  praeter,  by  the  Vulgate  and  some  modern 
writers  (do  you  not  know  ?  have  you  not  heard  ?).    With  as  much  or  as  little 
reason,  Cocceius  combines  the  present  and  the  future  (do  you  not  Jcnoiv? 
will  yu  not  hear  ?).     There  is  less  objection  to  the  rendering  of  both  verbs 
In  the  present  tense  by  Luther  (knoiv  you  not?  hear  you  notl).     But  the 
most  satisfactory,  because  the  safest  and  most  regular  construction,  is  the 
strict  one  given  in  the  Septuagint  (ov  p'Oiae(Si}£;  ov-/,  «MOt'(76(Ti>t::),  revived  by 
Lowth  (icill  ye  not  Jcnowl  ivill  ye  not  hearl),  and  approved  by  Ewald 
(o  wollt  ihr  nicht  erkennen  ?  o  wollt  ihr  nicht  horen  ?).  The  clause  is  then  not 
a  mere  expression  of  surprise  at  their  not  knowing,  but  of  concern  or  indig- 
nation at  their  being  unwilling  to  know.     There  is  no  inconsistency  between 
this  explanation  of  the  first  two  questions  and  the  obvious  meaning  of  the 
third  ;  because  the  proof  of  their  unwillingness  to  hear  and  know  was  the  fact 
of  their  having  been  informed  from  the  beginning. — tN-i?2  is  not  a  mere 
indefinite  expression  meaning  long  ago,  of  old,  or  the  like  ;  but  must  refer  to 
some  specific  terminus  a  quo,  which  Aben  Ezra  takes  to  be  the  beginning  of 
life.     This  would  be  more  appropriate  if  an  individual  were  the  object  of 
address.     Others  understand  it  to  mean,  from  the  beginning  of  yournational 
existence ;  which  supposes  too  exclusive  a  reference  to  the  Jews  in  exile. 
Neither  of  these  objections  lies  against  the  reference  of  the  words  to  the 
beginning  of  the  human   race,  or  of  the  world  itself,  which   is   moreover 
favoured  by  the  subsequent  appeal  to  the  creation.     Kimchi  explains  cjinn 


CHAPTERXL.  25 

as  an  allusion  to  the  cabbalah  or  Jewish  tradition,  and  Hitzig  likewise  thinks 
there  is  a  twofold  appeal  to  nature  and  tradition,  or  as  Calvin  more  scri|)tur- 
ally  states  it,  to  the  word  and  works  of  God,  But  although  this  aflbrds  a 
good  sense,  it  may  perhaps  be  too  great  a  refinement  on  the  plain  import  of 
the  words,  which  would  seem  to  refer  simply  to  the  testimony  of  external 
nature,  and  to  mean  that  they  who  question  the  existence  or  supremacy  of 
one  God  are  without  excuse,  as  Paul  says,  because  the  invisible  things  of  him 
from  the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the 
things  that  are  made,  to  wit,  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead.  (Rom.  1  :  20. 
Compare  Acts  14  :  17.  17  :  24.) — In  the  last  clause  Gesenius  and  most  of 
the  later  writers  connect  ihe  verb  directly  with  the  noun,  as  meaning,  have 
you  not  considered  (or  have  you  not  understood)  the  foundations  of  the 
earth  1  Others,  adhering  to  the  masoretic  accents,  which  forbid  the  imme- 
diate grammatical  conjunction  of  the  verb  and  noun,  prefix  a  preposition  to 
the  latter.  Have  you  not  understood  (^froin)  the  foundations  of  the  earth  1 
The  particle  thus  supplied  may  either  be  a  particle  of  time,  as  explained  by 
Junius  and  Ewald  {since  the  creation),  or  indicate  the  source  of  knowledge 
{from  the  creation),  as  explained  by  Calvin.  The  latter  is  more  obvious 
and  simple  in  itself;  but  the  other  is  favoured  by  the  parallelism,  as  tix-i-o  is 
universally  allowed  to  have  a  temporal  meaning.  Lowth's  emendation  of 
the  text,  by  the  actual  insertion  of  the  preposition,  is  superfluous  and  there- 
fore inadmissible. — By  the  foundations  of  the  earth  we  are  not  to  understand 
a  literal  description  of  its  structure,  nor  an  allusion  to  the  four  elements  of 
earth,  air,  fire,  and  water,  upon  which  Kimchi  here  inserts  a  dissertation,  but 
a  substitution  of  the  concrete  for  the  abstract,  the  foundations  of  the  earth 
being  put  by  a  natural  and  common  figure  for  its  being  founded,  i.  e.  its 
creation. 

V.  22.  The  {one)  sitting  on  (or  over)  the  circle  of  the  earth,  and  its 
inhabitants  {are)  as  grasshojipers  (or  locusts) ;  the  one  spreading  like  a 
veil  (or  awning)  the  heavens,  and  he  stretches  them  out  like  the  tent  to  dwell 
in.  The  relative  construction,  he  that  sitteth,  is  substantially  correct,  but  it 
is  better  to  retain,  as  far  as  possible,  the  form  of  the  original,  as  given  above. 
The  words  may  then  be  construed  with  the  verb  of  existence  understood,  as 
in  the  English  Version  {it  is  he  that  sitteth),  or  with  the  last  verb  in  the 
preceding  verse  {have  ye  not  considered  the  one  sitting  etc.  ?). — The  circle 
of  the  earth  may  either  mean  the  earth  itself,  or  the  heavens  by  which  it  is 
surmounted  and  encompassed.  (Solomon  Ben  INIclek :  pf^r?  33ipri  ^j^j.) 
This  expression  has  been  urged  with  equal  propriety  by  Gill  as  a  proof  that 
the  prophet  was  acquainted  with  the  true  shape  of  the  earth,  and  by  Knobel 
as  a  proof  that  he  had  a  false  idea  of  the  heavens.  On  the  absurdity  of  such 
conclusions,  sec  E.  P.  p.  559.     As  a  parallel  to  this  may  be  mentioned  the 


26  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L . 

remark  of  Hendewcrk,  that  God  is  here  described  as  bearing  just  the  same 
proportion  to  mankind,  that  the  latter  bear  to  insects  !  The  same  compari- 
son occurs  in  ]\um.  13:  33.  2:.ri  is  now  commonly  explained  to  mean  a 
species  of  locust,  which  of  course  has  no  effect  upon  the  point  of  the  com- 
parison, the  essential  idea  being  that  of  bcsliolne  (Calvin)  or  minuta  onimanda 
(Grotius). — p'n  is  properly  a  fine  cloth,  here  applied,  as  Lovvth  supposes,  to 
the  awning  spread  over  the  open  courts  of  oriental  houses.  It  has  been 
disputed  whether  the  last  words  of  the  verse  mean  for  himself  to  dwell  in,  or 
for  man  to  dwell  in.  But  they  really  form  part,  not  of  the  direct  descrip- 
tion, but  of  the  comparison,  like  a  tent  pitched  for  dwelling  in,  an  idea 
distinctly  expressed  in  the  translation  both  by  Henderson  (a  dwelling-tent) 
and  Ewald  {dos  fVohnzclt). — With  this  verse  compare  ch.  42:  5.  44:  24. 
Job  9:  8.  Ps.  104:  2. 

V.  23.  The  (one)  bringing  (literally  giving  or  putting)  princes  to 
nothing,  the  judges  (or  rulers)  of  the  earth  like  emptiness  (or  desolation)  he 
has  made.  Not  only  nature  but  man,  not  only  individuals  but  nations,  not 
only  nations  but  their  rulers,  are  completely  subject  to  the  power  of  God. 
The  Septuagint  understands  "i'ns  as  meaning  so  as  to  rule  over  nothing 
(w,'  0(6'^'  ('ar/iir),  implying  the  loss  of  their  authority.  The  Vulgate  strangely 
renders  n'^sni  secretorum  scrutatores,  a  version  probably  suggested  by  the 
Chaldee  T'n  a  secret. 

V.  24.  Not  even  sown  were  they,  not  even  planted,  not  even  rooted  in  the 
ground  their  stock,  and  he  ju<'(  breathed,  (or  blew)  upon  them,  and  they 
withered,  and  a  whirlwind  like  the  chaff  shall  fake  them  up  (or  away). 
The  Targum  gives  ba  qx  the  sense  of  though  (■'b-Ex),  Aben  Ezra  and 
Kimchi  that  of  as  if  (i^xr),  which  last  is  adopted  by  Luther  and  Calvin. 
Gesenius  and  the  later  German  writers  all  agree  that  the  compound  phrase 
has  here  the  sense  of  scarcely.  Cix  by  itself  denotes  accession,  and  may 
sometimes  be  expressed  by  yea  or  yes,  sonietimes  by  also  or  even.  It  is  not 
impossible  that  in  the  present  case,  the  Cix  in  one  clause  and  the  correspond- 
ing cj  in  the  other,  were  intended  to  connect  the  statements  of  this  verse 
witli  the  one  before  it.  As  if  he  had  said,  not  only  can  God  ultimately 
bring  them  to  destruction,  but  also  when  they  are  not  yet  planted  etc. ;  not 
only  by  slower  and  more  potent  means,  but  also  by  breathing  on  them. 
Another  possible  solution  is  that  yes  and  no  are  here  combined  to  express 
the  idea  of  uncertainty,  as  if  he  had  said,  they  are  and  are  not  sown,  planted, 
etc.  i.  e.  when  they  are  scarcely  sown,  or  when  it  is  still  doubtful  whetl)er 
they  are  sown.  But  perhaps  the  siuiplest  and  most  natural  construction  is 
the  one  assumed  above  in  the  translation,  where  the  phrase  is  taken  as  sub- 
stantially equivalent  to  our  7iot  even,  yielding  the  same  sense  in  the  end  with 


CHAPTERXL.  27 

the  usual  modern  version  scarcely.  Tlie  future  form  which  some  give  to 
the  verbs  is  wholly  arbitrary.  He  is  describing  the  destruction  of  the  great 
ones  of  the  earth  as  already  effected  ;  and  even  if  the  praeters  be  •praeterita 
propheticn,  there  is  no  more  need  of  giving  them  the  future  form  in  English 
than  in  Hebrew.  The  transition  to  the  future  in  the  last  clause  is  analogous 
to  that  in  v.  19,  and  has  the  same  effect  of  showing  that  the  point  of  obser- 
vation is  an  intermediate  one  between  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the 
destroying  process.  The  essential  meaning  of  the  whole  verse  is,  that  God 
can  extirpate  them,  not  only  in  the  end,  but  in  a  moment ;  not  only  in  the 
height  of  their  prosperity,  but  long  before  they  have  attained  it.  J.  D.  Mi- 
chaelis  supposes  a  particular  allusion  to  the  frequency  with  which  the  highest 
families  became  extinct,  so  that  there  is  not  now  on  earth  a  royal  house 
which  is  the  lineal  representative  of  any  race  that  reigned  in  ancient  times. 
It  is  possible,  however,  that  the  words  may  have  reference  to  the  national 
existence  of  Israel  as  a  nation,  the  end  of  which,  with  the  continued  and 
more  glorious  existence  of  the  church  independent  of  all  national  restrictions, 
may  be  said  to  constitute  the  great  theme  of  these  prophecies. 

V.  Q5.  And  (iioiu)  to  ivhom  will  ye  liken  me,  and  (to  whom)  shall  I  be 
equal?  saith  the  Holy  One.  He  winds  up  his  argument  by  coming  back 
to  the  triumphant  challenge  of  v.  18.  This  repetition  does  not  seem  to  have 
struck  any  one  as  indicating  a  strophical  arrangement,  although  such  a  con- 
clusion would  be  quite  as  valid  as  in  many  other  cases.  The  indirect 
construction  of  the  second  verb  as  a  subjunctive  (that  I  may  or  should  he 
equal),  although  preferred  by  Luther,  Calvin,  and  most  modern  writers,  is 
much  less  simple  in  itself,  and  less  consistent  with  the  genius  and  usage  of 
the  language,  than  its  strict  translation  as  a  future,  continuing  directly  the 
interrogation  of  the  other  clause. — The  epithet  Holy  is  in  this  connexion 
well  explained  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  as  including  all  that  distinguishes  between 
God  and  his  creatures,  so  that  the  antithesis  is  perfect.  (Compare  ch.  6  :  3, 
and  E.  P.  p.  89.) 

V.  26.  Lift  up  on  high  your  eyes  and  see — ivho  hath  created  all  these  1 
— (and  who  is)  the  (one)  bringing  out  by  ruunher  their  host  1 — to  all  of 
them  by  name  will  he  call — from  abundance  of  might  and  (because)  strong 
in  power — 7wt  one  faileth  (literally  a  man  is  not  missed  ov  found  wanting). 
The  same  exhortation  to  lift  up  the  eyes  occurs  elsewhere  in  Isaiah  (ch. 
37:  23.  49:  18.  60:  4). — The  construction  is  not,  see  (him)  who  created 
these,  or,  see  ivho  created  these,  but,  as  the  accents  indicate,  see,  behold,  the 
heavens  and  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  then  as  a  distinct  interrogation,  who 
created  these  1  There  is  more  doubt  as  to  the  question  whether  the  follow- 
ing words  continue  the  interrogation  or  contain  the  answer  to  it.     In  the 


28  CHAPTERXL. 

former  case,  the  sense  is,  Uho  created  these  ?  (who  is)  the  {one)  bringing 
out  etc  ?  In  the  latter  case,  IVho  created  these  ?  The  (^one)  bringing  out  etc. 
This  last  is  favoured  by  the  analogy  of  ch.  41:4,  26.  42:  24  and  other 
places,  where  a  similar  question  is  immediately  succeeded  by  the  answer. 
But  in  this  case  such  an  answer  would  be  almost  unmeaning,  since  it  would 
merely  say  that  he  wbo  rules  the  heavenly  bodies  made  them.  It  is  much 
more  natural  to  understand  the  last  clause  as  completing  the  description. — 
To  bring  out  is  a  military  term,  as  appears  from  ch.  43  :  17  and  2  Sam.  5 : 
2.  It  is  applied  as  here  to  the  host  of  heaven  in  Job  38:  32. — Instead  of 
by  number,  Zwingle  and  Henderson  understand  the  phrase  to  mean  in  num- 
ber, i.  e.  in  great  numbers,  just  as  nba  means  loith  might  or  mightily.  But 
the  common  explanation  of  the  phrase  as  denoting  order  and  arrangement  is 
favoured,  not  only  by  the  military  form  of  the  whole  description,  but  by  the 
parallel  expression  by  name,  which  is  not  used  to  qualify  the  noun  but  the 
verb,  and  to  show  in  what  way  the  commander  of  this  mighty  host  exerts  his 
power,  in  what  way  he  brings  out  and  calls  his  soldiers,  viz.  by  number  and 
by  name.  The  reference  of  these  clauses  to  the  rising  of  the  heavenly 
bodies  makes  them  too  specific,  and  confounds  direct  description  with  com- 
parison. The  sense  is  that  the  stars  are  like  an  army  which  its  leader  brings 
out  and  enumerates,  the  particular  points  of  the  resemblance  being  left  to 
the  imagination.  The  explanation  of  'i^^^x  by  Gesenius  and  others  as  an 
abstract  meaning  strength  is  neither  justified  by  usage  nor  required  by  the 
context,  since  the  word  may  be  applied  as  a  descriptive  epithet  to  God  who 
is  the  subject  of  the  sentence.  It  is  an  old  and  singular  opinion  that  the 
strength  here  spoken  of  is  that  residing  in  the  stars  themselves.  ^TS>i,  sib  may 
also  be  regarded  as  a  military  phrase.  The  feminine  form  of  the  same 
expression  occurs  in  a  different  application  ch.  34:  16.  (See  the  Earlier 
Prophecies,  p.  573.) 

V.  27.  Why  ivilt  thou  say  oh  Jacob,  and  why  (thus)  speaJc  oh  Israel? 
Hidden  is  my  way  from  Jehovah,  and  from  my  God  my  cause  will  j^ass  (or 
is  about  to  pass)  away.  The  future  verbs  in  this  verse  have  been  rendered 
as  variously  as  those  in  v.  21.  The  precise  question  asked  by  the  Prophet 
is  not  why  hast  thou  said,  why  dost  thou  say,  or  why  shouldest  thou  say,  but 
why  wilt  thou  still  go  on  to  say,  implying  that  it  bad  been  said,  was  still 
said,  and  would  be  said  again. — The  two  names  of  the  patriarch  are  here 
combined,  as  in  many  other  cases,  to  describe  his  offspring. — Hidden  may 
either  mean  unknown,  or  neglected,  or  forgotten,  in  which  last  sense  it  is 
used  below  in  ch.  65 :  16.  The  same  verb  is  applied  in  Gen.  31:49  to 
persons  who  are  absent  from  each  other  and  of  course  out  of  sight. —  Way  is 
a  common  figure  for  the  course  of  life,  experience,  or  what  the  world  calls 
fortune,  destiny,  or  fate. — The  figure  in  the  last  clause  is  forensic,  the  idea 


CHAPTERXL.  29 

that  of  a  cause  or  suit  dismissed,  lost  sight  of,  or  neglected  by  the  judge. 
The  expression  is  analogous  to  that  in  ch.  1  :  23,  where  it  is  said  of  the  un- 
just judges,  that  the  cause  of  the  widow  does  not  come  unto  them  or  before 
them.  (See  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  17.)  The  state  of  mind  described 
is  a  skeptical  despondency  as  to  the  fulfilment  of  God's  promises.  Since 
this  form  of  unbelief  is  more  or  less  familiar  to  the  personal  experience  of 
believers  in  all  ages,  and  the  terms  of  the  expostulation  here  are  not 
restricted  to  any  single  period  in  the  history  of  Israel,  the  grave  conclusions 
drawn  by  Gesenius  and  Knobel  with  respect  to  the  prevalence  of  an  epicu- 
rean skepticism  at  the  period  of  the  Babylonish  exile,  have  an  air  of  solemn 
trifling,  and  the  proofs  of  later  date  which  they  aftbrd  are  like  unto  them. 

V.  28.  Hast  thou  not  known  1  hast  thou  not  heard  ?  The  God  of  eter- 
nity (or  everlasting  God),  Jehovah,  the  Creator  of  the  ends  of  the  earth, 
will  not  faint,  and  ivill  not  tire  ;  there  is  no  search  (with  respect)  to  his 
understanding.  Most  of  the  modern  writers  prefer  Lowth's  construction, 
that  Jehovah  (is)  the  everlasting  God ;  but  this,  by  making  several  distinct 
propositions,  impairs  the  sim|)licity  of  the  construction.  The  translation  of 
the  futures  in  the  present  or  potential  form  (does  not  or  cannot  faint) ,  though 
not  erroneous,  is  inadequate,  since  both  these  senses  are  included  in  the 
promiscuous  form  or  future  proper.  That  he  ivill  not  faint  or  tire,  implies 
sufficiently  in  this  case  that  he  neither  does  nor  can,  while  it  expresses  his 
unwillingness  to  do  so.  The  ends  of  the  earth  is  a  common  Hebrew  phrase 
for  its  limits  and  all  that  they  include.  The  Septuagint  makes  the  prophet 
say  that  Jehovah  will  not  hunger  (ov  nttvuasi). — This  verse  contains  an 
answer  to  the  unbelieving  fears  expressed  in  that  before  it,  which  ascribed 
to  God  an  imperfection  or  infirmity  with  which  he  is  not  chargeable.  The 
last  clause  may  either  be  a  general  assertion  that  he  cannot  leave  his  people 
unprotected  through  a  want  of  understanding  and  of  knowledge,  or,  as 
Hitzig  supposes,  a  suggestion  that  his  methods  of  proceeding,  though  inscru- 
table, are  infinitely  wise,  and  that  the  seeming  inconsistency  between  his 
words  and  deeds,  far  from  arguing  unfaithfulness  or  weakness  upon  his 
part,  does  but  prove  our  incapacity  to  understand  or  fathom  his  profound 
designs.  Even  supposing  that  the  former  is  the  strict  sense  of  the  words, 
the  latter  is  implicitly  contained  in  them. 

V.  29.  Giving  to  the  faint  (or  weary)  strength,  and  to  the  powerless 
might  will  he  increase.  He  is  not  only  strong  in  himself,  but  the  giver  of 
strength  to  others,  or,  to  state  it  as  an  argument  a  fortiori,  he  who  is  the 
only  source  of  strength  to  others  must  be  strong  himself,  and  able  to  fulfil 
his  promises. — The  construction  is  similar  to  that  in  vs.  22,  23,  not  except- 


30  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L . 

ing  the  transition  from  the  participle  to  the  finite  verb,  "jri  is  not  strictly 
a  periphrasis  for  the  present  tense,  as  rendered  in  the  English  Version,  but 
agrees  with  Jehovah  as  the  subject  of  the  preceding  verse.  The  position  of 
this  word  at  the  beginning  and  of  the  corresponding  verb  at  tbe  end  of  the 
verse  is  empbatic  and  climacteric,  tbe  first  meaning  simply  to  give,  the  other 
to  give  more  or  abundantly. — The  Septuagint  has,  giving  to  the  hungry 
stremrth,  and  to  those  that  s;rieve  not  sorrow. 

V.  30.  And  [yet)  ivcary  shall  youths  he  arid  faint,  and  chosen  (^youths) 
shall  be  uxalicned,  be  weah'ened.  There  is  here  an  obvious  allusion  to  the 
terms  of  v.  2S.  What  is  there  denied  of  God,  is  here  affirmed,  not  only  of 
men  in  o-eneral,  but  of  the  stoutest  and  most  vigorous,  aptly  represented  by 
the  young  men  chosen  for  military  service,  which  appears  to  be  a  better 
explanation  of  c^nsina  than  the  one  given  by  Gesenius,  viz.  choice  or  chosen, 
in  reference  to  personal  beauty.  (Compare  ch.  9:16,  and  the  Earlier 
Prophecies,  p.  177.)  Fi'irst,  with  still  less  probability,  supposes  the  essen- 
tial meaninor  to  be  that  of  growth  or  adolescence.  That  the  prominent  idea 
here  conveyed  is  that  of  manly  strength  and  vigour,  is  not  questioned. — 
For  the  evidence  that  Vi323  strictly  means  to  grow  weak  or  be  weakened, 
see  1  Sam.  2  :  4,  Zech.  12  :  8,  and  Gesenius's  Thesaurus,  torn.  ii.  p.  720. 

The  intensive   repetition  of  t'  e  verb  may  either  be  expressed    by  the 

addition  of  an  adverb,  as  in  the  English  Version  (iitterly  fall),  or  retained 
in  the  translation  as  above. 

V.  31.  And  (on  the  other  hand)  those  ivaiting  for  Jehovah  shall  gain 
new  strength ;  they  shall  raise  the  jnnion  like  the  eagles,  they  shall  run  and 
not  be  weary,  they  shall  walk  and  not  faint.  The  marked  antithesis 
between  this  verse  and  that  before  it,  justifies  the  use  of  hut  in  English, 
although  not  in  the  original,  in^l^  is  {o  iv ait  for  ov  expect,  \m^\y\ng{2i\\\\  and 
patience.  This  is  also  the  old  English  meaning  of  the  phrase  to  ivait  upon, 
as  applied  to  servants  who  await  their  master's  orders  ;  but  in  modern  usage 
the  idea  of  personal  service  or  attendance  has  become  predominant,  so  that 
the  English  phrase  no  longer  represents  the  Hebrew  one.  Jehovah's 
waiters,  which  is  Ewald's  bold  and  faithful  version  (Jahve's  Harrer),  would 
convey  if  not  a  false  an  inadequate  idea  to  the  English  reader.  The  class 
of  persons  meant  to  be  described  are  those  who  show  their  confidence  in 
God's  ability  and  willingness  to  execute  his  promises,  by  patiently  awaiting 
their  fulfilment.  The  restriction  of  these  words  to  the  exiles  in  Babylon  is 
entirely  gratuitous.  Although  applicable,  as  a  general  proposition,  to  that 
case  among  others,  they  admit  of  a  more  direct  and  striking  application  to 
the  case  of  those  who  under  the  old  dispensation  kept  its  end  in  view,  and 


CHAPTERXL.  31 

still  "waited  for  the  consolation  of  Israel,"  and  "looked  for  redemption  in 
Jerusalem."  (Luke  1  :  25,38.) — The  phrase  translated  they  sJioll  gain  new 
strength  properly  means  they  shall  exchange  strength  ;  but  the  usage  of  the 
verb  determines  its  specific  meaning  to  be  that  of  changing  for  the  better  or 
improving.  The  sense  is  therefore  correctly  given  in  the  English  Version 
(^they  shall  renew  their  strength). — Of  the  next  phrase  there  are  three  dis- 
tinct interpretations.  1.  The  English  Bible  follows  Luther  in  explaining 
i^?|]  as  the  future  Kal,  and  "i^x  as  a  qualifying  noun,  equivalent  to  the 
ablative  of  instrument  in  Latin  Qhey  shall  mount  up  with  ivings  .  This 
construction  is  also  adopted  by  Junius,  Cocceius,  Vitringa,  Augusti,  Hen- 
derson, and  Barnes.  2.  The  second  opinion  is  expressed  in  Lowth's  trans- 
lation :  they  shall  put  forth  fresh  feathers  like  the  moulting  eagle.  The 
reference  is  then  to  the  ancient  belief  of  the  eagle's  great  longevity  and  of 
its  frequently  renewing  its  youth.  (Psalm  103  :  5.)  The  rabbinical  tradi- 
tion, as  recorded  by  Saadias,  is  that  the  eagle,  at  the  end  of  every  tenth 
year,  soars  so  near  the  sun  as  to  be  scorched  and  cast  into  the  sea,  from 
which  it  then  emerges  with  fresh  plumage,  till  at  the  end  of  the  tenth  decade 
or  a  century  complete,  it  sinks  to  rise  no  more.  This  explanation  of  the 
phrase  before  us  is  given  not  only  by  the  Septuagint  (nr^QOfpvi'iaovaiv)  and 
the  Vulgate  (assument  pejmas),  but  by  the  Targum  and  Peshito,  although 
more  obscurely.  In  later  times  it  is  approved  by  Grotius,  Clericus,  J.  D. 
Michaelis,  Rosenmiiller,  Ewald,  and  De  Wette.  The  principal  objections 
to  it  are,  that  ^'^^_^_  has  no  where  else  the  sense  of  putting  forth  (although  the 
root  does  sometimes  mean  to  sprout  or  grow),  and  that  ^isx  does  not  denote 
feathers  in  general,  but  a  whig-feather  or  a  pinion  in  particular.  3.  A 
third  construction,  simpler  than  the  first  and  more  agreeable  to  usage  than 
the  second,  gives  the  verb  its  ordinary  sense  of  causing  to  ascend  or  raising 
and  the  noun  its  proper  sense  of  pinion,  and  connects  the  two  directly  as  a 
transitive  verb  and  its  object,  they  shall  raise  the  pinion  (or  the  tving)  like 
the  eagles.  This  construction  is  adopted  by  Calvin,  Hensler,  Gesenius, 
Maurer,  Hitzig,  Umbreit,  Hendewerk,  and  Knobel ;  and,  though  charged  by 
Beck  with  enormous  flatness,  is  even  more  poetical  than  that  which  supposes 
an  allusion  not  to  the  soaring  but  the  moulting  of  the  eagle.  In  the  last 
clause  the  verbs  "?^  and  t\'S1  are  introduced  together  for  the  third  time  in  a 
beautiful  antithesis.  In  v.  28  they  are  applied  to  Jehovah,  in  v.  30  to  the 
strongest  and  most  vigorous  of  men,  as  they  are  in  themselves,  and  here  to 
the  waiters  for  Jehovah,  the  believers  in  his  promises,  who  glory  in  infirmity 
that  his  strength  may  be  perfect  in  their  weakness.  (2  Cor.  12  :  9.) — Kno- 
bel's  comment  on  this  promise  is  characteristic  of  his  age  and  school.  After 
condescendingly  showing  that  the  thought  is  a  correct  one  (der  Gedanke  ist 
richtig),  he  explains  himself  by  saying,  that  trust  in  divine  help  does 
increase  the  natural  powers,  and  that  this  effect  is  viewed  by  the  pious  writer 


32  CHAPTERXLI. 

(i.  e.  Isaiah)  as  a  direct  gift  of  God  in  requital  of  the  confidence  reposed  in 
him.  All  this,  though  ahsolutely  true,  is  relatively  false,  so  far  as  it  implies 
su|)enoiity,  in  point  of  elevation  and  enlargement,  on  the  part  of  the 
expounder  as  imagining  himself  to  be  more  than  a  prophet.   (Luke  11:9.) 


CHAPTER    XLI. 


Until  the  ends  of  Israel's  national  existence  are  accomplished,  that 
existence  must  continue,  in  spite  of  hostile  nations  and  their  gods,  who  shall 
all  perish  sooner  than  the  chosen  people,  vs.  1-16.  However  feeble  Israel 
may  be  in  himself,  Jehovah  will  protect  him,  and  raise  up  the  necessary 
instruments  for  his  deliverance  and  triumph,  vs.  17-29. 

V.  1 .  Be  silent   to  me,  oh  islands,  and  the  nations  shall  gain  new 
strength;  they  shall  approach,  then  shall  they  speak,  together  to  the  judg- 
ment-seat will  we  draw  near.     Having  proved  the  impotence  of  idols  in  a 
direct  address  to  Israel,  Jehovah  now  sunmions  the  idolaters  themselves  to 
enter  into  controversy  with  him.     The  restriction  o(  islands  here  to  certain 
parts  of  Europe  and  Asia  seems  preposterous.     The  challenge  is  a  general 
one  directed  to  the  whole  heathen  world,  and  islands  is  a  poetical  variation 
for  lands  or  at  the  most  for  maritime  lands  or  sea-coasts.      Silence  in  this 
connexion  implies  attention  or  the  fact  of  listening,  v/hich  is  expressed  in 
Job  33  :  31.     The  imperative   form  at  the  beginning  gives  an  imperative 
sense  likewise  to  the  future,  which  might  therefore  be  translated  let  them 
approach  etc.     There  is  an  obvious  allusion  in  the  first  clause  to  the  promise 
in  ch.  40  :  31.     As  if  he  had  said  :  they  that  hope  in  Jehovah  shall  renew 
their  strength  ;  let  those  who  refuse  renew  theirs  as  they  can. — The  parti- 
cle then  makes  the  passage  more  graphic  by  bringing  distinctly  into  view  the 
successive  steps  of  the  process.     This  seems  to  recommend  the  explanation 
of  ::B'^'a  as  a  local  rather  than  an   abstract  noun.     The    same  judicial   or 
forensic  figure  is  applied  to  contention  between  God  and  man  by  Job  (9  :  19, 
20,  32).     Lowth's   paraphrase  of  this  verse  is  more  than  usually  languid 
and  diluted :  e.  g.  let  the  distant  nations  repair  to  me  with  new  force  of 

mind let  us  enter  into  solemn  debate.     The  same  writer  reads 

i;!3"innn  on  the  authority  of  the  Septuagint  (iynainX^a&t),  and  says  that  the 
same  mistake  occurs  Zeph.  3:17.  But  the  Hiphil  of  HJ^n  does  not  occur 
elsewhere,  and  the  common  text  is  confirmed  by  Aquila  (xcoq^Evaaze)  and 
Symmachus  (aiyijaaii),  as  well  as  by  the  other  ancient  versions. 


CHAPTERXLI.  33 

V.  2.    Who  hath  raised  up  (or  aivaJcened)  from  the  east  1     Righteous- 
ness shall  call  him  to  its  foot ;  it  shall  give  nations  before  him,  and  cause 
him  to  tread  upon  kings ;   it  shall  give  (them)  as  dust  to  his  sword,  and  as 
driven  stubble  to  his  bow.     The  simplest  construction  of  the  first  clause  is 
that  which  assumes  an  abrupt  transition    fi-om   the  form  of  interrogation  to 
that  of  prediction.     The  speaker,  as  it  were,  interrupts   his  own   question 
before  it  is  complete,  in  order  to  supply  what  must  otherwise  be  presup- 
posed.     Instead  of  going  on  to  ask  who   brought  the  event  to  pass,  he 
pauses  to  describe  the  event  itself.     The  same  sense  is  obtained,  but  with 
a  change  of  form,  by  supplying  a  relative  and  continuing  the  interrogation. 
Who  raised  up  from  the  east  (Jiiin  whom)  righteousness  etc.     The  old  con- 
struction which  makes  righteousness  the  object  of  the  verb  and  regards  it  as 
an  abstract  used  for  a  concrete   (i-ighteousness  for  righteous  one),  is  wholly 
arbitrary  and  at  variance  with  the  masoretic  accents.     Gesenius  and  the 
later  German  writers  understand  the  clause  to  mean  whom  victory  meets  at 
every  step.     This  new  sense  of  pnii  is  entirely  gratuitous,  and  violates  the 
fundamental    laws   of  lexicography,    by    multiplying    senses    without    any 
necessity   and    confounding   the   definition  of  a   term   with  its  application. 
Here  and  elsewhere  P7.:i  means   the   righteousness  of  God  as  manifested  in 
his  providence,  his  dealings  with  his  people  and  their  enemies.      (See  eh. 
]  :  27,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  19.)     Because  it  suggests,  in  such 
connexions,  the  idea  of  its  consequences  or  effects,  it  no  more  follows  that 
this  is  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word,  than   that  ivrath  means  sufferino- 
because  the  wrath  of  God  causes   the   sufferings  of  the  guilty.     Another 
objection  to  this  version  of  the  clause  is  its  giving  5<np  the  less  usual  sense 
of  meet,  and  i^S']^  that  of  at  every  step,  which  is  certainly  not  justified  by 
the  obscure  and  dubious  analogy  of  Gen.  30  :  30,  especially  when  taken  in 
connexion  with  the  usage  of  tlie  same  phrase  elsewhere  to  mean  in  the  foot- 
steps, train,  suite,  or  retinue  of  any  one.      (See  1  Sam.  25:42.  Job  18:  11. 
Hab.  3  :  5.)      In  his  lexicons,  Gesenius  admits   the  idea  to  be  that  oi  fol- 
lowing, and  actually  introduces  that  verb  into  the  clause,  a  virtual  concession 
that  his  own  translation  of  N'^P?  is  at  variance  not  only  with  usage  but  the 
context.      To  call  to  one's  foot  is  a  Hebrew  idiom  for  callin"-  to  one's 
service,  or  summoning  to  take  a  place  among  one's  followers.     This  act  is 
here  ascribed  to  the  divine  righteousness  as  a  personified   attribute.     The 

other  verbs  may  agree  with  the  same  subject  or  directly  with  Jehovah. 

In  the  last  clause  Gesenius  and  the  later  Germans  make  the  suffixes  col- 
lective, and  by  his  sword,  his  bow,  understand  the  sword  and  bow  of  the 
nations  or  their  kings.  As  the  modern  writers  are  so  much  accustomed  to 
reject  the  old  interpretations  with  contempt,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  mention 
here,  that  this  construction  is  as  old  as  Kimchi,  and  that  it  is  set  aside  by 
Vitringa  as  an  expositio  violcnta  quae  nihil  sani  praefcrt.     The  enaJJao-e 

3 


34  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I . 

of  number  is  in  fact  too  violent  to  be  assumed   witbout  necessity.     Vitringa 
himself  supposes  tbe  sword  and  bow  to  be  tbose  of  the  conqueror,  and  to  be 
described  as  like  dust  or  chair  in  rapidity  of  motion.      But  the  iuiage,  which 
is  that  of  dust  or  chaff  driven  by  the  wind,  is  always  used  elsewhere  in  a 
passive  and  unfavourable   sense,  never  as  expressive  of  activity  or  energy. 
On  the  whole,  there  seems  to  be  no  construction  more  free  from  objection 
than  the  old  one  of  tlie   English  Version,  the  Targum,  and  tbe   Vulgate, 
which  gives  'in"^  the  same  sense,  the  same  subject,  and  the  same  object  as  in 
the  preceding  clause.    The  difficulty  which  arises  from  supposing  an  ellipsis  of 
the  preposition  before  sivord  and  bo2o,  may  be  removed  by  taking  these  words 
as  adverbial  or  qualifying  nouns,  a  Hebrew  idiom  of  constant  occurrence. 
This  construction  becomes  still  more  natural  if  we  understand  the  clause  to 
mean  that  he  makes  the  enemy  like  dust  or  clmffivith  or  by  means  o/his  sword 
and  bow.     In  that  case,  the  verb  may  be  construed  either  with  nini ,  pni^j , 
or  the  conqueror  himself.     The  construction   may  be  rendered  clearer  by 
restoring  the  Hebrew  collocation.     Kings  he  shaU  subdue  («nf/)  shall  make 
like  dust  (with)  his  sivord  and  like  driven  chaff  (with)  his  boio. — The  explana- 
tion of  the  futures  as  preterites  is  wholly  arbitrary,  and  even  the  descriptive 
present  appears  inadmissible  when  the  strict  sense  is  so  perfectly  appropriate. 
— The  question,  whose  appearance  is  predicted  in  this  verse,  has  been  always 
a  subject  of  dispute.     Eusebius,  Theodoret,  and  Procopius  understand  it  as 
describing   the  triumphs  of  the   true   religion   or  the   gospel,  here    called 
righteousness.     Cyril  and  Jerome  apply  it  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself 
as  the  Righteous  One  or  the  Lord   our   Righteousness.     Cocceius  stands 
alone  in  his  application  of  the  verse  to  the  apostle  Paul.     The  Jews  make 
Abraham  the   subject  of  the   passage,  excepting   Aben   Ezra,  who,  with 
Vitringa  and  all  the  latest  writers,  understands  it  as  a  prophecy  of  Cyrus. 
The  inappropriateness  of  the  terms  employed  to  our  Saviour  or  the  Gospel, 
to  Abraham  or  Paul,  is  almost  self-evident,  and  equally  clear  is  its  appro- 
priateness to  the  case  of  Cyrus.     The  argument  in  favour  of  the  latter  appli- 
cation  drawn   from  the   analogy  of  ch.  45  :  1,  46  :  11,  is  less  conclusive, 
because  he  is  there  expressly  named.     The  truth  appears  to  be  that  this  is 
a  more  general  Intimation  of  a  great  eventful  movement  from  the  east,  which 
is  afterwards  repeated  with  specific  reference  to  Cyrus  and  his  conquests. 
It  might  even  be  supposed  without  absurdity  that  there  is  here  an  allusion 
to  tbe  general  progress  of  the  human  race,  of  conquest,  civilization,  and 
religion,  from  the  east  to  the  west.     Umbreit  supposes  a  specific  reference 
•    to  the  course  of  the  sun,  from  which  the  name  of  Cyrus  was  derived,  as  we 
shall  see. 

V.  3.  He  shall  pursue  them;  he  shall  pass  (in)  peace  (or  safety)  ;  a 
path  with  his  feet  he  shall  not  go.     There  is  the  same  objection  here  as  in 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  1 .  35 

the  preceding  v^erse  to  the  explanation  of  the  verbs  as  preterites  ;  but  most 
interpreters,  not  content  with  this,  make  the  future  in  tiie  last  clause  a 
pluperfect  (the  way  that  he  had  not  gone  with  his  feet).  This  method  of 
translation  involves  the  whole  subject  in  uncertainty.  If  the  past  and  the 
future  senses  may  be  interchanged  at  pleasure  and  without  necessity,  the 
interpreter  may  make  the  author  say  what  he  pleases.  In  the  case  before 
us,  J.  D.  Michaelis  adheres  to  the  proper  future  sense,  and  explains  the 
clause  to  mean  that  he  shall  not  have  occasion  to  retrace  his  steps.  But  as 
this,  like  the  common  explanation  before  mentioned,  leaves  the  phrase  iviih 
his  feet  pleonastic  and  unmeaning,  the  preference  is  due  to  Ewald's  suppo- 
sition that  the  clause  describes  the  swiftness  of  his  n)olions,  as  flyino-  rather 
than  walking  on  foot.  This,  which  would  be  natural  and  striking,  even 
in  itself  considered,  is  confirmed  by  the  analogy  of  Daniel  8  :  5,  where  we 
read  that  an  he-goat  came  from  the  ivest  on  the  face  of  the  whoJe  earth,  and 
touched  not  the  ground. 

V.  4.  JVho  hath  wrought  and  done  (it),  calling  the  generations  from  the 
beginning?  I  Jehovah,  the  first  and  ivith  the  last,  I  (a  in)  he.  Another 
construction  of  the  verse,  preferred  by  the  latest  writers,  includes  the  last 
part  of  the  first  clause  in  the  answer  to  the  question.  M^ho  hath  wrought 
and  done  it  1  He  that  calleth  the  generations  etc.  But  besides  the  unequal 
distribution  of  the  verse  which  thus  arises,  this  construction  makes  the  answer 
speak  of  God  both  in  the  first  and  second  person,  and  gives  to  the  indefinite 
xnp  the  sense  of  the  emphatic  N-ip-n  ,  neither  of  which  departures  from  the 
tisus  loquendi,  though  admissible  in  case  of  necessity,  ought  to  be  assumed 
without  it. —  Calling  the  generations  may  either  mean  calling  them  into 
existence  or  proclaiming  them,  i.  e.  predicting  them  ;  probably  the  latter, 
since  the  event  itself,  although  it  proved  a  superhuman  agency,  did  not  prove 
it  to  be  that  of  Jehovah,  which  could  only  be  established  by  the  fulfilment 
of  predictions  uttered  in  his  name.  With  the  last  does  not  simply  mean  the 
last,  which  is  the  form  employed  in  ch.  41  :  21-25,  A6:  8-10,  but  co-existent 
with  the  last,  a  mode  of  expression  which  would  seem  to  imply  that  although 
Jehovah  existed  before  all  other  beings  he  will  not  outlast  them  all.  i<!-,n  i:x 
is  explained  by  some  of  the  older  writers  as  meaning  I  am  God ;  by  the 
latest,  I  am  the  same  (i.  e.  unchangeable)  ;  but  the  simplest  construction  is 
the  common  one,  I  am  he,  i.  e.  the  being  to  whom  the  interrogation  has 
respect,  /  am  he  ivho  has  wrought  and  done  it. 

V.  5.  The  isles  have  seen  it  and  are  afraid,  the  ends  of  the  earth 
tremble  ;  they  have  approached  and  come.  Some  regard  this  as  a  description 
of  the  effect  produced  by  the  foregoing  argument,  but  others  as  a  part  of  the 
argument  itself,  drawn  from  the  effect  of  the  appearance  of  the  person  men- 


36  C  H  A  FT  E  R    XLI. 

tioned  in  v.  2.  As  an  instance  of  the  length  to  which  specific  historical 
interpretation  can  be  carried  by  the  new  as  well  as  by  the  old  school  of 
interpreters,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  Hendewevk,  with  the  first  book  of 
Herodotus  before  him,  explains  islatifh  here  to  mean  the  Greek  states  in  the 
west  of  Asia  Minor, — their  approach,  the  message  which  they  sent  to  Cyrus 
after  the  defeat  of  Croesus, — the  mutual  encouragement  described  in  the  next 
verse,  the  deliberations  of  the  Panionion  !  All  this,  however,  he  supposes 
to  be  here  described,  not  by  a  prophet  in  the  proper  sense,  but  by  a  contem- 
porary writer. 

V.  G.  A  man  his  neighbour  (i.  e.  one  another)  ihey  wiU  Jceep,  and  to 
his  brother  (one)  will  say,  Be  strong  !  This  general  description  is  then 
filled  up,  or  carried  out  into  detail  in  the  next  verse,  both  containing  a 
sarcastic  description  of  the  vain  appeal  of  the  idolaters  to  the  protection  of 
their  tutelary  deities. 

V.  7.  And  the  carver  has  strengthened  the  gilder,  the  smoother  ivith 
the  hammer  the  smiter  on  the  anvil ;  he  says  (or  is  saying)  of  the  solder, 
It  is  good ;  and  he  has  strengthened  it  with  nails  ;  it  shall  not  be  moved. 
The  sarcasm  consists  in  making  the  idolaters  dependent  upon  idols  which 
are  themselves  dependent  upon  common  workmen  and  the  most  trivia;} 
mechanical  operations  for  their  form  and  their  stability.  Hence  the  par- 
ticular enumeration  of  the  different  artificers  employed  in  the  manufacture 
of  these  deities.  J.  D.  Michaelis  explains  c"5  nVn  to  mean  the  treader  on 
the  bellows,  i,  e.  the  bellows-blower. — The  text  of  the  English  Version  has 
it  is  ready  for  the  soldering  ;  but  the  other  construction  is  now  universally 
adopted.  The  last  clause  implies  that  the  strength  of  the  idol  is  not  in  itself, 
but  in  the  nails  that  keep  it  in  its  place  or  hold  its  parts  together. 

V.  8.  And.  thou  Israel  my  servant,  Jacob  whom  I  have  chosen,  the  seed 
of  Abraham  my  friend.  The  prominent  idea  is  still  that  of  the  contrast 
between  Israel  as  the  people  of  God,  and  the  heathen  as  his  enemies.  The 
insertion  of  the  substantive  verb  in  the  first  clause,  thou  art  Israel  my  servant 
(Vitringa),  or  thou  Israel  art  my  servant  (English  Version),  is  unnecessary. 
This  whole  verse  with  the  next  may  be  understood  as  a  description  of  the 
object  of  address,  or  of  the  person  to  whom  the  exhortation  in  v,  10  is 
directed.  The  two  names  of  Jacob  are  again  combined  in  application  to 
his  progeny.  The  race  is  described  as  God's  servant  and  his  elect,  or,  com- 
bining the  two  characters,  his  chosen  servant,  chosen  to  be  his  servant. 
Vitringa  understands  this  last  term  as  including  the  idea  of  a  worshipper  or 
votary  ;  and  Hitzig  compares  it  with  Abdastartus,  a  servant  of  Astarte,  and 
the  favourite  Arabic  name  Abdallah  or  a  worshipper  of  Allah. — The  people 


CHAPTERXLI.  37 

are  here  described  not  only  as  the  sons  of  Jacob  but  of  Abraham.  "^^0.^ 
cannot  of  itself  denote  an  object  of  divine  love,  as  it  is  explained  in  the 
Septuagint  (^6i>  yyantjaa),  nor  can  it  be  both  active  and  passive,  amans  and 
«rafliws,  as  Vitringa  supposes.  The  latter  idea  is  implied  but  not  expressed. 
The  same  honourable  title  is  bestowed  on  Abraham  in  2  Chr.  20;  7,  James 
2 :  23,  and  in  the  common  parlance  of  the  Arabs,  by  whom  he  is  usually 
styled  icU!   JoyLi^  tlie  Friend  of  God,  or  absolutely,  JuJL^t  the  Friend. 

V.  9.  Thou  lohorti  I  have  grasped  from  the  ends  of  the  earth,  and  from 
its  joints  (or  sides)  have  called  thee,  and  said  to  thee,  My  servant  (ar/) 
thou,  I  have  chosen  thee  and  not  rejected  thee.  The  description  of  the 
object  of  address  is  still  continued.  The  essential  idea  here  expressed  is 
that  of  election  and  separation  from  the  rest  of  men,  a  bringing  near  of  those 
who  were  afar  oft'.  Interpreters  have  ueedlessly  disputed  whether  the  voca- 
tion of  Israel  in  Abraham,  or  at  the  exodus,  is  here  particularly  meant ;  since 
both  are  really  included  in  a  general  description  of  the  calling  and  election 
of  the  people.  The  objection  that  Israel  is  distinguished  from  Abraham  in 
V.  8,  is  of  no  weight,  except  against  the  supposition  (if  maintained  by  any) 
diat  Abraham  himself  is  here  the  object  of  address.  The  application  of 
analogous  expressions  to  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  in  Deut.  39:  10,  Ezek. 
20 :  5,  only  proves  that  this  was  one  of  the  great  crises  or  junctures  in  the 
progress  of  the  people,  at  which  their  eleciioa  or  vocation  was  declared,  and 
as  it  were  renewed.  The  question  in  what  sense  Egypt  could  be  called  the 
ends  of  the  earth,  is  as  trifling  as  the  answer  which  some  give  it,  that  it  was 
remote  from  Babylon.  The  phrase  in  question  is  a  common  idiomatic 
expression  for  remoteness,  often  used  without  refereEce  to  particular  local- 
ities (see  ch.  5  ;  26.  i3  :  2).  Tlie  idea  meant  to  be  conveyed  is  identical 
with  that  expressed  by  Paul  when  he  says  (Epb.  2  :  13),  vlihI^  01  note  uireg 
tiu}<(.'uv  g'/pi,'  iytt'i'j&ijze^  The  translation  /  have  taken  is  inadequate,  the 
Hebrew  verb  meaning  to  hold  fast,  and  the  idea  of  removal  being  rather 
implied  than  expressed.  The  parallel  expression  (n-^p-i^ix)  is  explained  by 
Geseniiis  from  the  analogy  of  ^sx  side,  by  Ma^rer  from  that  of  b-^sx  a  joint, 
which  seems  to  be  also  presupposed  in  tlie  version  of  Synmiaclius  (fiy/Mvav). 
The  rabbinical  interpretation,  chief  men^  is  founded  on  the  analogy  of  Ex. 
24  :  11.  Some  of  the  Jewish  writers  understand  l'^  as  meaning  in  spite  of 
others  in  preference  to,  but  both  without  authority. — Lowth's  translation  of 
rpnoxti  as  a  future  is  entirely  arbitrary,  and  overlooks  the  peculiar  Hebrew 
idiom  of  saying  the  same  thing  positively  aiad  negatively.  (See  the  Earlier 
Prophecies,  p.  46.) 

V.  10.  Ftar  thou  not,  for  I  (awt)  with  thee  ;  look  not  around,  for  I 
(nm)  thy  God ;  1  have  strengthened  thee,  yea  I  have  helped  thee,  yea  I  have 


38  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I . 

upheld  thee  lo'ith  my  right  hand  of  righteousness.  This  may  be  regarded 
as  the  conclusion  of  the  sentence  beginning  in  v.  8,  as  the  address  to  which 
the  two  preceding  verses  are  an  iiitrocUiciion. —  Vitringa  derives  rnain  from 
'JVC  .  Ewald  makes  it  an  orthographical  variation  of  nsn-n  (Gen.  24  :  21). 
Gesenius  and  most  other  modern  writers  make  it  the  Hiihpacl  of  nr-^j ,  and 
explain  it  to  mean,  do  not  look  around  fearfully  as  if  for  help.  Hitzig 
compares  it  with  the  Homeric  verb  numuirco. — The  Cix  ,  which  might  be 
rendered  nay  more,  seems  to  give  the  last  clause  the  form  of  a  climax, 
although  such  a  progression  cannot  easily  be  traced  in  the  thoughts.  The 
English  Version,  which  adheres  to  the  strict  translation  of  the  preterites  in 
V.  9,  here  gratuitously  employs  the  future  form,  which  wholly  changes  the 
complexion  of  the  sentence.  It  is  not  a  sin)ple  promise,  but  a  reference  to 
what  God  had  already  done  and  might  therefore  be  expected  to  do  again. 
The  present  form  employed  by  Rosenmiiller  (corroboro  te)  is  less  objection- 
able than  the  future,  but  in  no  respect  preferable  to  the  strict  translation. — 
Equally  arbitrary  is  the  introduction  by  the  later  Germans  of  their  favourite 
idea  that  PT4,  in  these  prophecies  means  prosperity  or  success  ;  whereas  it 
does  not  even  suggest  that  notion,  except  so  far  as  it  flows  from  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  as  an  effect  from  its  cause.  Hitzig's  translation  gracious  arm 
is  at  once  a  departure  from  the  old  and  the  new  interpretation.  It  is  not 
even  necessary  to  assume  with  Low  th  that  pl^i  here  denotes  the  faithfulness 
of  God,  and  to  translate  accordingly  my  faithful  right  hand.  The  true 
sense  is  the  strict  one  o{  righteousness  or  justice,  the  appeal  to  which  in  such 
connexions  has  already  been  explained.  (See  above,  on  v.  2.)  The  right 
hand  of  7ny  righteousness  supposes  the  attribute  to  be  personified, — a  suppo- 
sition which  may  be  avoided  by  referring  the  suffix  to  the  whole  complex 
phrase,  my  right  hand  of  righteousness  or  just  right  hand. — As  specimens 
of  ultra-specific  exposition,  without  any  foundation  in  the  text,  it  may  be 
mentioned  that  Knobel  understands  this  as  an  exhortation  to  the  Jewish 
exiles  not  to  be  afraid  of  Cyrus. 

V.  11.  Lo,  ashamed  and  confounded  shall  be  all  those  incensed  (or 
inflamed)  against  thee ;  they  shall  be  as  nothing  (or  as  though  they  ivere 
not),  and  destroyed  shall  be  thy  men  of  strife  (or  they  that  strive  with  thee). 
Not  only  shall  Krael  himself  escape,  but  his  enemies  shall  perish.  To  be 
ashamed  and  conibunded,  here  as  usual,  includes  the  frustration  of  their  plans 
and  disappointment  of  their  hopes.  On  the  meaning  of  as  nothing,  see 
above,  p.  20.  The  construction  of  the  phrase  thy  men  of  strife,  is  the  same 
as  that  of  wy  right  hand  of  righteousness  in  v.  10. 

V.  12.  Thou  shalt  seek  them  and  not  find  them,  thy  men  of  quarrel ; 
they  shall  be  as  iiothing  and  as  nought,  thy  men  of  war  (i.  e.  they  who 


CHAPTER    XLI.  39 

quarrelled  and  made  war  with  thee).  The  fiist  clause  contains  a  common 
Hebrew  figure  for  complete  disappearance  and  destruction.  (See  Ps. 
37  :  36.  Jer.  50:  20.  Amos  8  :  12.  Hos.  5  :  6.)  ">x  and  dsx  strictly  denote 
non-existence  and  annihilation.     (See  above,  on  ch.  40  :  17.) 

V.  13.  For  I,  Jehovah  thy  God,  (f//«)  holding  fast  ihy  right  hand ; 
the  {one)  saying  to  thee,  Fear  not,  I  have  helped  thee,  i.  e.  I,  who  com- 
mand thee  not  to  fear,  have  already  helped  thee,  or  secured  thy  safety. 
J.  D.  Michaelis  gives  P'^Tn-o  the  causative  sense  of  strengthening ;  but  this 
sense  is  rare,  except  in  a  few  of  the  later  books,  and  the  other  is  recom- 
mended here,  not  only  by  the  general  agreement  of  interpreters,  but  by  the 
analogy  of  v.  9. 

V.  14.  Fear  not,  thou  worm  Jacob  and  ye  men  of  Israel;  I  have  helped 
thee,saith  Jehovah,  and  thy  Redeemer,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel.  The  same 
encouragement  is  here  repeated,  but  with  a  direct  contrast  between  Israel's 
weakness  and  the  strength  of  God. — The  feminine  form  of  the  verb  has 
reference  to  that  of  the  noun  rvhin .  This  epithet  expresses  not  merely  the 
contempt  of  others,  as  in  Ps.  22  :  7,  much  less  the  Babylonian  oppression  of 
the  Jews,  as  J.  H.  Michaelis  and  others  think,  but  the  real  meanness  and 
unworthiness  of  man,  as  in  Job  25  :  6.  As  the  parallelism  seems  to  require 
an  analogous  expression  of  contempt  in  the  next  clause,  some  either  read 
in^  {dead  men)  with  Aquila  (rt&isooTeg),  Theodotion  {vey.Qof),  and  Jerome 
{qui  mortui  estis  ex  Israel),  or  regard  "'r'c  as  a  modification  of  that  word 
denoting  mortals.  Vitringa  and  Hitzig  gain  the  same  end  by  explaining  it 
as  an  ellipsis  for  "ispia  ''T!^  men  of  number,  i.  e.  few  men,  used  in  Ps.  105: 
12.  So  the  Septuagint  has  ohyoaroc,  but  omits  xvorm  aUogether.  Ewald 
completes  the  parallelism  in  a  very  summary  manner,  by  reading  ^>?"'wi  r^sn  , 
and  translating  it  gelcrummtes  Israel.  Maurer,  on  the  other  hand,  discovers 
that  the  parallelism  is  not  always  perfect,  and  advises  the  reader  to  trans- 
late it  boldly  {redde  intrepide)  men  of  Israel,  which  seems  to  be  the  simplest 
and  most  obvious  course,  leaving  the  accessory  idea  of  fewness  or  weakness 
to  suggest  itself. — The  word  ^sj  redeemer  would  suggest  to  a  Hebrew 
reader  the  ideas  of  a  near  kinsman  (Lev.  25 :  24,  25)  and  of  deliverance 
from  bondage  by  the  payment  of  a  ransom.  Its  highest  application  occurs 
here  and  in  Job  19:  25.  The  reference  to  the  Son  of  God,  although  it 
might  not  be  perceptible  of  old,  is  now  rendered  necessary  by  the  knowledge 
that  this  act,  even  under  the  old  dispensation,  is  always  referred  to  the  same 
person  of  the  Trinity.  The  substitution  of  the  future  for  the  preterite  by  the 
English  and  some  other  versions  lias  already  been  seen  to  be  gratuitous  and 
arbitrary. 


40  CHAPTERXLI. 

V.  15.  Behold  I  have  placed  thee  for  (i.  e.  appointed  thee  to  be,  or 
changed  thee  into)  a  threshing-sledge,  sharp,  neiu,  possessed  of  teeth  (or 
edges)  ;  thou  shalt  thresh  mountains  and  heat  (jJiem)  small,  and  hills  like 
the  chaff"  shalt  thou  jjlace  (or  7nakc).  The  erroneous  idea  thai  he  simply 
promises  to  furnish  Israel  with  the  means  of  thresliing  mountains,  has  arisen 
from  the  equivocal  language  of  the  English  Version,  I  will  make  thee,  which 
may  cither  mean,  I  icill  make  for  thee,  or  will  make  thee  to  become,  whereas 
the  last  sense  only  can  by  any  possibility  be  put  upon  the  Hebrew,  as  liter- 
ally translated  above.  The  oriental  threshing  machine  is  sometimes  a  sledge 
of  thick  planks  armed  with  iron  or  sharp  stones,  sometimes  a  system  of 
rough  rollers  joined  together  like  a  sledge  or  dray.  Both  kinds  are  dragged 
over  the  grain  by  oxen.  (See  Robinson's  Palestine,  III.  p.  143.) — Pi^'n  is 
properly  to  crush,  pound  fine,  or  pulverize,  r">S"'Q  strictly  denotes  mouths ; 
but  like  the  primitive  noun  from  which  it  is  derived,  it  is  sometimes  applied 
to  the  edge  of  a  sharp  instrument,  perhaps  in  allusion  to  the  figure  of  devour- 
ing. Here  it  signifies  the  edges,  blades,  or  teeth,  with  which  the  threshing- 
wain  is  armed.  The  reduplicated  form  is  supposed  to  denote  the  number 
of  such  parts  by  Ewald  (yielspitzig)  and  Knobel  (yielschneidig) .  The 
literal  sense  of  h'^^  is  possessor,  owner.  There  seems  to  be  no  ground  for 
the  common  assumption  that  hills  and  mountains  are  specific  emblems  here 
for  states  or  governments.  The  image  presented  is  the  strange  but  strong 
one  of  a  down-trodden  worm  reducing  hills  to  powder,  the  essential  idea 
being  that  of  a  weak  and  helpless  object  overcoming  the  most  dispropor- 
tionate obstacles,  by  strength  derived  from  another. 

V.  10.  Thou  shalt  fan  (or  winnow)  them,  and  a  wind  shall  take  them 
up,  and  a  whirlwind  shall  scatter  them,  and  thou  shalt  joy  in  Jehovah,  in 
the  Holy  One  of  Israel  shall  thou  boast  (or  glory).  The  figure  of  the 
preceding  verse  is  here  carried  out  and  completed.  The  mountains,  having 
been  completely  threshed,  are  winnowed,  in  the  usual  oriental  mode,  by 
being  thrown  to  the  wind.  Israel,  on  the  other  hand,  is  safe,  not  through 
his  own  strength  but  in  that  of  his  protector,  in  whom,  i.  e.  in  his  relation  to 
whom,  be  finds  his  highest  happiness  and  honour.  The  writer's  main  design 
is  evidently  still  to  exhibit  the  contrast  between  God  and  his  peo])le  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  idols  and  their  people  on  the  other. 

V.  17.  The  suffering  and  the  poor  (are)  seeking  water,  and  it  is  not 
{there  is  none)  ;  their  tongue  with  thirst  is  parched.  I  Jehovah  ivill  hear 
(or  answer)  them,  (/)  the  God  of  Israel  will  not  forsake  them.  The  first 
clause  describes  the  need  of  a  divine  interposition,  the  last  the  interposition 
itself.     The  images  are  so  unlike  those  of  the  foregoing  verse  that  they  might 


CHAPTERXLI.  41 

seem  to  be  unconnected,  but  for  the  flict  that  the  whole  passage  is  entirely 
metaphorical.  Thirst  is  a  natural  and  common  metaphor  for  suffering.  Those 
who  restrict  the  verse  to  the  Babylonish  exile  are  divided  on  the  question 
whether  it  literally  describes  the  hardships  of  the  journey  through  the  wilder- 
ness, or  metaphorically  those  of  the  captivity  itself.  Both  suppositions  are 
entirely  arbitrary,  since  there  is  nothing  in  the  text  or  context  to  deprive  the 
passage  of  its  genuine  and  full  sense  as  a  general  promise,  tantamount  to 
saying.  When  my  people  feel  their  need,  I  will  be  present  to  supply  it. 
Such  a  promise  those  in  exile  could  not  fail  to  find  appropriate  in  their  case; 
but  it  is  equally  appropriate  in  others,  and  especially  to  the  glorious  deliver- 
ance of  the  church  from  the  fetters  of  the  old  economy,  f^3:^'  is  not  to  hear 
in  general,  but  to  hear  prayer  in  a  favourable  sense,  to  answer  it.  The 
conditional  turn  given  to  the  sentence  in  our  version  (when  the  poor  and 
needy  seek  etc.)  is  substantially  correct,  but  a  needless  departure  from  the 
form  of  the  original. 

V.  18.  /  will  open  upon  bare  hills  streams,  and  in  the  midst  of  valleys 
fountains  ;  I  ivill  place  the  desert  for  (\.  e.  convert  it  into)  a  poo/  of  water, 
and  a  dry  land  for  (or  into^  springs  of  water.  The  same  figure  for  entire 
and  joyful  change  occurs  in  ch.  30  :  25  and  ch.  35  :  7,  and  with  its  opposite 
or  converse  in  Ps.  107  :  33,  35.  It  is  now  commonly  admitted  that  ci'iauj 
includes  the  idea  of  barrenness  or  nakedness.  (Compare  t^S'iJ?  from  the  same 
root,  ch.  13  :  2.) 

V.  1 9.  /  will  give  in  the  wilderness  cedar,  acacia,  and  myrtle,  and  oil- 
tree  ;  I  will  place  in  the  desert  fir,  pine,  and.  box  together.  The  main 
idea,  common  to  all  explanations  of  this  verse,  is  that  of  trees  growing 
where  they  never  grew  before.  It  is  comparatively  unimportant  therefore 
to  identify  the  species,  although  J.  D.  INIichaelis  supposes  them  to  have  been 
selected  because  such  as  do  not  naturally  grow  together.  With  respect  to 
the  cedar  and  the  myrtle  there  is  no  doubt.  Vitringa  regards  ^^'^,  (which 
has  no  and  before  it)  as  an  epithet  of  tin  ,  and  translates  it  cedrus  praestan- 
tissima.  Since  Lovvth  however  it  has  been  commonly  regarded  as  the 
Hebrew  name  of  the  acacia,  a  thorny  tree  growing  in  Arabia  and  Egypt. 
(See  Robinson's  Palestine,  Vol.  II.  p.  349.) — By  the  oil-tree  is  meant  the 
oleaster  or  wild  olive,  as  distinguished  from  the  T\'^,'i  or  cultivated  tree  of  the 
same  species.  For  the  different  explanations  of  ttJi"i2,  see  the  Earlier 
Prophecies,  p.  272.  According  to  the  latest  authorities,  "iJ^in  is  neither  the 
pine,  the  elm,  nor  the  plane-tree,  but  the  ilex,  holm,  or  hard  oak,  so  called 
from  "1^^  to  endure  or  last.  By  the  same  writers  "iit'sn  is  understood  to  be 
a  species  of  the  cedar  of  Lebanon,  so  called  from  its  erectness  and  loftiness. 


42  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I . 

V.  20.  That  they  may  see,  and  know,  and  consider,  and  understand 
together,  that  the  hand  of  Jehovah  hath  done  this,  and  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel  hath  created  it.  The  verbs  in  the  first  clause  may  refer  to  men  in 
general,  or  to  those  immediately  concerned  as  subjects  or  spectators  of  the 
change  described,  ^-"ia';  they  may  place,  seems  to  be  an  elliptical  exjiression 
for  -p  i""'!"^  may  place  their  heart,  i.  e.  a])ply  their  mind,  or  give  attention. 
There  is  no  need  of  introducing  -^  into  the  text,  as  Lowlh  does,  since  the 
very  same  ellipsis  has  been  pointed  out  by  Kocher  in  Judges  19:  30.  Still 
less  ground  is  there  to  amend  the  text  with  Houbigant  by  reading  'isia'] 
{may  he  astonished). — There  is  a  climax  in  the  last  clause  :  he  has  not  only 
done  it  but  created  it,  i.  e.  produced  a  new  effect  by  the  exertion  of  almighty 
power. 

V.  21.  Present  your  cause  (literally  bring  it  near  or  cause  it  to  ap- 
proach, i.  e.  into  the  presence  of  the  judge),  saith  Jehovah  ;  bring  forward 
your  defences  (or  strong  reasons),  saith  the  king  of  Jacob.  The  Septua- 
gint  changes  the  whole  meaning  of  the  sentence  by  making  it  a  simple 
affirmation  (^your  judgment  draweth  near). — Jerome  applies  the  last  clause 
to  their  idols  :  accedant  idola  vestra  quae  putatis  esse  fortissimo.  But 
most  interpreters  refer  it  to  the  arguments  by  whicli  they  were  to  main- 
tain their  cause.  The  metaphor  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  that  of 
bulwarks  or  entrenchments ;  but  this,  as  Knobel  has  observed,  is  hardly 
consistent  with  the  call  to  bring  them  forward.  It  is  better  therefore  to 
give  the  word  its  wider  sense  of  strength  or  strons;  thing. 

V.  22.  They  shall  bring  forward  (or  let  them  bring  forward)  and  show 
forth  to  us  the  (^things)  which  are  to  happen;  the  former  things,  what  they 
were,  show  forth,  and  we  will  set  our  heart  (apply  our  mind,  or  pay  atten- 
tion to  them),  and  know  their  issue  ;  or  {else)  the  coming  {events)  make  us 
to  hear.  The  prescience  of  future  events  is  here  appealed  to  as  a  test  of 
divinity.  (Compare  Deut.  18  :  22.  Jer.  28:  9,  and  ch.  43  :  12  below.) 
Vitringa,  Lowth,  and  others,  understand  by  former  things  a  proximate 
futurity  ;  but  the  antithesis  between  this  and  coming  things  shows  that  the 
former  must  mean  prophecies  already  fulfilled,  or  at  least  already  published. 
They  are  required  to  demonstrate  their  foreknowledge,  either  by  showing 
that  they  had  predicted  something,  or  by  doing  it  now.  Knobel's  question 
whether  we  and  us  mean  God  alone  or  God  and  the  Prophet  together,  is  not 
in  the  best  taste  or  particularly  reasonable,  since  the  whole  idea  which  the 
text  conveys  is  that  of  two  contending  parties  at  a  judgment-seat.  They 
means  the  party  of  the  false  gods  and  their  worshippers,  we  that  of  Jehovah 
and  his  people. 


CHAPTERXLI.  43 

V.  23.  Shoio  forth  the  (^things)  to  come  hereafter,  and  tve  tviJl  knoiv 
that  ye  are  gods  ;  yes,  ye  shall  do  good  or  do  evil,  and  we  will  look  ahout 
and  see  together.  The  subjunctive  construction,  that  toe  may  know,  gives 
the  sense  of  the  original,  but  with  a  needless  change  of  form.  The  same 
remark  applies  to  the  imperative  translation  of  the  futures  in  the  next  clause 
(do  good,  do  evil).  The  use  of  the  disjunctive,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
rendered  almost  unavoidable  by  an  entire  difference  of  idiom,  the  Hebrews 
constantly  employing  and  where  or  in  English  seems  essential  to  the  sense. 
The  verbs  in  this  clause  are  strictly  and  distinctly  understood  by  Vitringa, 
as  relating  to  the  reward  of  worshippers  and  the  punishment  of  enemies. 
Henderson  explains  the  clause  as  challenging  the  false  gods  to  perform  a 
miracle.  But  most  interpreters  retain  the  idiomatic  meaning  of  the  same 
expressions  elsewhere,  namely,  that  of  doing  any  thing  whatever,  good  or 
bad.  (See  Jer.  10:5.  Zeph.  1  :  12.)  Lowth  and  Henderson  understand 
nrri":3;  as  denoting  terror,  and  change  the  pointing  so  as  to  derive  the  fol- 
lowing verb  from  x"]';  to  fear.  Gesenius  makes  the  former  verb  synonymous 
with  ns/^n:  (2  Kings  14  :  8),  let  us  look  one  another  in  the  face,  i.  e.  con- 
front one  another  in  dispute  or  battle.  It  is  much  more  probable,  however, 
that  the  word  has  the  same  sense  as  in  v.  10  above,  where  it  seems  to  express 
the  act  of  looking  round  or  about  upon  those  present,  in  that  case  with  the 
secondary  notion  of  alarm  (as  looking  round  for  help),  but  in  this  case  with 
that  of  inspection  or  consideration  (we  will  look  about  us).  Hitzig  refers 
the  word  together  to  the  two  acts  which  the  verbs  express  ;  but  it  is  much 
more  natural  to  understand  it  as  denoting  that  the  two  contending  parties 
unite  in  the  same  act. 

V.  24.  Lo,  ye  are  of  nothing  (or  less  than  nothing)  and  your  ivork  of 
nought  (or  less  than  nought)  ;  an  abomination  (is  he  that)  chooseth  (or  will 
choose)  you.  This  is  the  conclusion  drawn  from  their  failure  or  refusal  to 
accept  the  challenge  and  to  furnish  the  required  proof  of  their  deity.  For 
the  meaning  of  "N-a  ,  see  above,  on  ch.  40  :  17.  The  parallel  term  i'sx  is 
regarded  by  some  of  the  Rabbins  as  synonymous  with  nrtx  (^worse  than  a 
viper)  ;  but  the  context  requires  an  expression  not  of  quality  but  of  nonentity. 
Solomon  Ben  Melek  makes  it  a  synonyme  of  Dsx  ,  Vitringa  an  ortho- 
graphical variation  of  the  same;  either  of  which  is  better  than  the  suppo- 
sition now  most  commonly  adopted  of  an  error  in  the  text,  the  retention  of 
which,  even  supposing  its  occurrence,  it  would  not  be  very  easy  to  account 
for.  Augusti  and  Hitzig  understand  the  phrase  to  mean  of  nothing  or 
belonging  to  nothing,  \\'h\ch  Knobel  explains  as  tantamount  to  saying  that 
they  had  no  work,  or  in  other  words,  that  they  could  do  nothing. — J^^^^'R  is 
a  strong  expression  often  used  to  describe  an  object  of  religious  abiiorrence. 
On  the  choosing  of  gods,  compare  Judg.  5  :  8. 


44  CHAPTERXLI. 

V.  25.  I  have  raised  up  (one)  from  the  north,  and  he  has  come  ;  from 
the  rising  of  the  sun  shall  he  call  upon  my  name ;  and  he  shall  come  upon 
pj-inces  as  upon  mortar,  and  as  a  potter  treadeth  clay.  This  is  correctly 
understood  by  Knobel  as  a  specific  application  of  the  general  conclusion  in 
V.  24.  If  the  gods  of  the  heathen  could  do  absolutely  nothing,  it  was 
impossible  that  they  should  be  the  authors  of  any  one  remarkable  event,  and 
especially  of  that  on  which  the  Prophet  has  his  eye.  The  expressions  are 
remarkably  similar  to  those  in  v.  2,  so  that  the  Prophet  may  be  here  said  to 
resume  the  train  of  thought  which  had  been  interrupted  at  the  end  of  v.  4. 
Having  taken  occasion  to  describe  the  effect  of  the  event  foretold  upon  the 
worshippers  of  idols,  and  from  that  to  show  the  impotence  of  the  gods  them- 
selves, he  returns  to  the  event  which  he  had  been  describing,  and  continues 
his  description.  As  before,  he  takes  his  stand  at  an  intermediate  point 
between  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  whole  process,  as  appears  from 
the  successive  introduction  of  the  preterite  and  future.  This  peculiar  feature 
of  the  passage  is  obscured  if  not  effaced  by  rendering  them  all  alike, 
or  by  arbitrarily  distinguishing  between  the  tense  of  "'ninisn  and  nx^i . 
With  the  single  substitution  of  he  has  come  for  he  shall  come,  the  common 
version  is  entirely  correct.  The  mention  of  the  north  and  east  together  has 
been  variously  explained.  Jerome  and  Luther  understand  the  clause  to 
mean,  that  he  was  called  from  the  north,  but  came  from  the  east.  Eusebius, 
Cyril,  and  Jerome  refer  the  first  clause  to  the  nations  and  the  last  to  Christ, 
which  is  entirely  gratuitous.  Calvin  refers  the  first  to  the  Chaldees  and  the 
last  to  Cyrus,  which  is  better  but  still  arbitrary.  J.  D.  Michaelis  supposes 
the  two  subjects  of  the  clause  to  be  Darius  or  Cyaxares  the  Mede,  and  Cyrus 
the  Persian,  whose  respective  countries  lay  to  the  north  and  east  of  Baby- 
lonia. The  later  writers  modify  this  explanation  by  referring  all  to  Cyrus, 
here  considered  at  the  same  time  as  a  Persian  and  a  Mede.  A  still  more 
satisfactory  hypothesis,  perhaps,  is  that  the  subject  of  this  passage  is  not  a 
detern)inate  individual,  but  the  conqueror  indefinitely,  who  is  not  identified 
till  afterwards.  The  use  of  the  word  ci:50  ,  which  is  the  appropriate 
description  of  the  Babylonian  nobles,  contains  a  covert  intimation  of  the 
particular  events  in  view.  Instead  of  showing  that  the  passage  is  of  later 
date,  as  some  imagine,  it  affords  a  remarkable  example  of  prophetic  foresight. 
The  act  of  calling  on  the  name  of  Jehovah  is  commonly  regarded  as  an 
allusion  to  the  profession  of  the  true  religion,  or  at  least  the  recognition  of 
Jehovah  as  the  true  God,  on  the  part  of  Cyrus  (Ezra  1  :  2). — Compare  the 
figures  of  the  last  clause  with  ch.  10  :  6.  25  :  10. 

V.  26.  Who  declared  from  the  beginning  ?  {Sa7j)  and  we  will  know  ; 
and  beforehand,  and  ive  will  say,  Right  (or  True).  Nay,  there  ivas  none 
thai  told ;  nay,  there  was  none  that  uttered ;  nay,  there  was  none  that  heard 


CHAPTERXLI.  45 

your  words.  Because  the  adverbs  of  time  do  not  necessarily  express  remote 
antiquity,  Knobel  infers  that  they  here  mean  since  the  first  appearance  of 
Cyrus.  But  such  an  appeal  to  the  prediction  of  what  one  man  could  foresee  as 
well  as  another  would  be  simply  ridiculous.  The  sense  of  p^^i  is  determined 
by  that  of  r^x  in  ch.  43  :  9.  The  meaning  of  the  whole  verse  is  that  the 
events  in  question  had  been  foretold  by  Jehovah  and  no  other. 

V.  27.  First  to  Zion,  Behold,  behold  them !  and  to  Jerusalem  a  hrin^er 
of  good  news  will  I  give.  This  very  peculiar  idiomatic  sentence  may 
be  paraphrased  as  follows.  /  am  the  first  to  say  to  Zion,  Behold,  behold 
them,!  and  to  give  Jerusalem  a  briuger  of  good  netvs.  The  simplest  con- 
struction is  to  make  the  verb  at  the  end  govern  both  clauses  ;  but  in  English 
the  sense  may  be  expressed  more  clearly  by  supplying  the  verb  say.  The 
common  version  of  the  last  clause  is  correct,  but  that  of  the  first  appears  to 
have  no  meaning.  The  sense  is  not  the  first  shall  say,  but  I  first,  i.  e. 
before  any  other  God  or  prophet. 

V.  28.  And  1  will  look,  but  there  is  no  man  ;  and  of  these,  but  there  is 
no  one  advising  (or  informing)  ;  and  I  will  ask  them,  and  they  will  return 
a  word  (or  ansiver).  He  allows  them  as  it  were  another  opportunity  of 
proving  their  divinity.  In  the  first  two  clauses,  the  expectation  and  the 
disappointment  are  described  together  ;  in  the  third,  the  expectation  only  is 
expressed,  the  result  being  given  in  the  following  verse.  First  he  looks,  but 
finds  not  what  he  seeks.  Then  again,  but  with  the  same  result.  Once 
more  he  interrogates  them  and  awaits  an  answer,  but  (as  the  next  verse 
adds)  discovers  them  to  be  impostors.  There  is  something  singularly  beau- 
tiful in  this  peculiar  structure  of  the  sentence,  which  is  wholly  marred  by 
the  indirect  constructions  that  are  commonly  adopted,  that  when  I  asked 
them  could  answer  a  word,  or,  that  I  should  question  them  and  they  return 
an  answer.  The  verse  is  full  of  laconic  and  elliptical  expressions,  which 
however  may  be  easily  completed,  as  will  appear  from  the  following  brief 
paraphrase.  I  will  look  (once  more  to  see  whether  any  of  these  idols  or 
their  prophet  can  predict  the  future),  but  there  is  no  one  (who  attempts  it). 
From  among  (all)  these  (I  seek  for  a  response,  but  there  is  none).  Yet  once 
more  /  ivill  ask  them,  and  (perhaps)  they  tvill  return  an  answer.  The  same 
application  of  the  verb  7?;  to  the  prediction  of  the  future  occurs  below 
in  ch.  44  :  26.  The  form  here  used  is  to  be  strictly  construed  as  a 
participle. 

V.  29.  Lo,  they  (^are)  all  nought,  nothing  their  works,  wind  and  emp- 
tiness their  molten  images.     This  is,  at  once,  the  termination  of  the  sentence 


46  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I  I . 

he'^nn  in  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  preceding,  and  the  summary  conclusion 
pf  the  whole  preceding  controversy  as  to  the  divinity  of  any  gods  except 
Jehovah.  To  the  usual  expressions  of  nonentity  the  Prophet  adds  two 
other  strong  descriptive  terms,  viz.  wind  and  emptiness. 


CHAPTER    XLII. 


This  chapter  exhibits  to  our  view  the  Servant  of  Jehovah,  i.  e.  the 
Messiah  and  his  people,  as  a  complex  person,  and  as  the  messenger  or 
representative  of  God  among  the  nations.  His  mode  of  operation  is 
described  as  being  not  violent  but  peaceful,  vs.  1-5.  The  effects  of  his 
influence  are  represented  as  not  natural  but  spiritual,  vs.  6-9.  The  power 
of  God  is  pledged  for  his  success,  notwithstanding  all  appearances  of 
inaction  or  indifference  on  his  part,  vs.  10-17.  In  the  latter  portion  of  the 
chapter,  the  Church  or  Body  of  Christ,  as  distinguished  from  its  Head,  and 
representing  him  until  he  came,  is  charged  with  unfaithfulness  to  their  great 
trust,  and  this  unfaithfulness  declared  to  be  the  cause  of  what  it  suffered, 
vs.  18-25.  Several  important  exegetical  questions  with  respect  to  the 
Servant  of  Jehovah  will  be  fully  canvassed  in  the  exposition  of  the  chapter. 

V.  !.  Behold  my  servant  !  I  will  hold  him  fast ;  my  chosen  one  (in 
whom)  my  soul  delights ;  I  have  given  (or  put)  my  Spirit  upon  him ; 
judgment  to  the  nations  shall  he  cause  to  go  forth.  There  is  no  need  of 
assuming  (with  the  English  Version)  an  ellipsis  of  the  relative  twice  in  the 
same  clause.  The  separate  construction  of  the  first  two  words,  as  an  intro- 
duction to  the  following  description,  makes  them  far  more  impressive,  like 
the  ecce  homo  (Jds  6  uvOimno^)  of  John  19:  5. — The  first  verb,  construed 
as  it  is  here,  signifies  to  hold  fast,  for  the  most  part  with  the  accessory  idea 
of  holding  up,  sustaining,  or  supporting.  Elect  or  chosen  does  not  mean 
choice  or  excellent,  except  by  implication  ;  directly  and  strictly  it  denotes 
one  actually  chosen,  set  apart,  for  a  definite  purpose. — n:s'i  is  the  verb  ap- 
plied in  the  Law  of  Moses  to  the  acceptance  of  a  sacrifice,  from  which  some 
have  inferred  that  there  is  here  an  allusion  to  expiatory  merit ;  but  this, 
although  admissible,  is  not  an  obvious  or  necessary  supposition. — By  Spirit, 
as  in  all  such  cases,  we  arc  to  understand,  not  only  divine  influence,  but  the 
divine  person  who  exerts  it.  (See  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  pp.  59,  219.) — 
The  use  of  the   phrase   on  him,  where   in  him  might   have  seemed  more 


//. 


HAPTERXLII.  47 

natural,  Is  probably  intended  to  suggest  th^  idea  of  descent,  or  of  an  influence 
from  heaven. — The  last  clause  is  understood  by  Grotius   as  denoting   that 
the  person  here  described  should  denounce  the  penal  judgments  of  Jehovah 
on  the  Medes  and  Babylonians.     But  besides  the  unreasonable  limitation  of 
the  words  to  these  two  nations,  this  explanation  is  at  variance  with  the  usa^e 
of  the  singular  '^siij'a  and  with  the  context,  which   describes  the  servant  of 
Jehovah   as  a  source  of  blessing  to  the  gentiles.     The  same  objection  does 
not   lie  against   an   explanation   of  '^^^.'o  by  Clericus   as    meaning  justice 
or  just  government ;  but  this  is  too  restricted,  as  appears  from  the  subsequent 
context.     The  most  satisfactory  interpretation  is   the   common  one.  which 
understands  this  word  as  a  description  of  the  true  religion,  and  the  whole 
clause   as   predicting  its  diffusion.     The  office  thus  ascribed  to  the  servant 
of  Jehovah,  both  here  and  in  the  following  context,  as  a  teacher  of  the  truth, 
makes  the  description  wholly  inappropriate  to  Cyrus,  who  is  nevertheless 
regarded   as  the  subject  of  the  prophecy,  not  only  by  Saadias  among  the 
Jews,  but  by  Hensler,  Koppe,  and  even   Ewald,  though  the  last  combines 
this  application  with  another  which  will  be  explained  below.     Aben  Ezra, 
Grotius,  and  some   later   writers,  understand  the  passage  as  descriptive  of 
Isaiah  himself;  and  this  hypothesis  is  modified  by  De  Wetle  and  Gesenius  in 
his  Commentary,  so  as  to  embrace  all  the  prophets  as  a  class.     Besides  the 
objection  to  the  first  of  these  opinions,  somewhat  flippantly  alleged  by  J.  D. 
Michael  is,  that  if  Isaiah  had  thus  spoken  of  himself,  he  would  have  proved 
himself  a   madtnan  rather  than  a  prophet,  it  may  be  objected  to  the  whole 
hypothesis,  that  the  Prophets  of  the  old  dispensation  are  invariably  repre- 
sented  as  the  messengers  of  God  to  the  Jews  and  not  the  gentiles.     And 
the   same  thing  is  still  more  emphatically  true  of  the  Levitical  priesthood. 
Of  some  but  much  less  weight  is  the  objection  to  the  later  form  of  the  same 
theory,  that  the  collective  sense  which   it  puts   upon  the  plirase  is  neither 
natural  nor  countenanced  by  any  satisfactory  analogy.     There  is  indeed,  as 
all  admit,  such  a  collective  use  of  the  phrase  5eri'a?i^  of  Jehovah, m  applica- 
tion not  to  any  rank  or  office  or  profession,  but  to  Israel  the  chosen  people 
as  such  considered.     Of  this  usage  we  have  already  had  an  example  in  ch. 
41:8,  and  shall  meet  with  many  more  hereafter.     The  distinction  between 
this   application  of  the   title   and  the   one  which  De  Wette    proposes  is, 
that  in  the  former  case  the  national  progenitor  is  put  by  a  natural  meto- 
nymy for  his  descendants,  whereas  there  is  no  such  individual  Prophet  (not 
even   Moses)    in   whom   the  whole  succession    is   concentrated    either   by 
natural  association  or  by  established  usage.    A  third  objection  to  this  theory 
may  be  drawn   from  the  analogy  of  other  places,  where    the    same    great 
servant  of  Jehovah  is  described,  not   only  as  a   sufferer,  but  as  an  atonino- 
sacrifice.     Even    admitting  the  gratuitous  assumption,  that  the  Prophets, 
as  a  class,  were  habitually  subject  to  malignant  persecution,  the  repre- 


48  CHAPTERXLII. 

sentation  of  these  sufterings  as  vicarious  and  expiatory  would  be  forced 
and  arbitrary  in  itself,  as  well  as  contradicted  by  the  tenor  of  Scripture. 
This  last  objection  also  lies  against  the  exclusive  application  of  the  title  to 
Israel  as  a  people,  or  to  the  pious  and  believing  portion  of  them,  which  has 
been  maintained  by  various  writers  from  Solomon  Jarchi  down  to  Knobel, 
who  supposes  that  the  servant  of  Jehovah  sometimes  means  the  whole  body 
of  the  Jews  in  exile  who  externally  adhered  to  the  worship  of  Jehovah, 
sometimes  the  real  spiritual  Israel  included  in  this  number.  But  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  Jewish  nation  as  atoning  for  the  sins  of  the  gentiles,  or 
of  the  pious  Jews  as  atoning  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  nation,  is  without 
analogy  in  any  other  part  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  objections  which 
have  now  been  stated  to  these  various  hypotheses  may  negatively  serve 
to  recommend  the  one  adopted  in  the  Targum  and  by  Kimchi  and  Abar- 
benel,  who  represents  the  champions  of  the  others  as  struck  with  judicial 
blindness.  This  ancient  doctrine  of  the  Jewish  church,  and  of  the  great 
majority  of  Christian  writers,  is  that  the  servant  of  the  Lord  is  the  Messiah. 
The  lengths  of  paradoxical  extravagance  to  which  the  unbelieving  critics 
are  prepared  to  go  rather  than  admit  this  supposition,  may  be  learned 
from  Knobel's  positive  assertion,  that  the  Old  Testament  Messiah  is  no 
where  represented  either  as  a  teacher  or  a  sufferer,  and  that  the  later 
chapters  of  Isaiah  contain  no  allusion  to  a  Messiah  at  all.  In  favour  of 
the  Messianic  exposition  may  be  urged  not  only  the  tradition  of  the  Jewish 
church  already  cited,  and  the  perfect  facility  with  which  this  hypothesis  at 
once  accommodates  itself  to  all  the  requisitions  of  the  passages  to  which  it  is 
applied,  but  also  the  explicit  and  repeated  application  of  these  passages  to 
Jesus  Christ  in  the  New  Testament.  These  applications  will  be  noticed 
seriatim  as  the  texts  successively  present  themselves.  To  this  first  verse 
there  are  several  allusions  more  or  less  distinct  and  unequivocal.  Besides 
the  express  citation  of  it,  with  the  next  three  verses,  in  Matth.  12  :  19-21, 
there  is  an  obvious  allusion  to  its  terms,  or  rather  a  direct  application  of 
them  made  by  God  himself,  in  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  our  Saviour 
at  his  baptism,  and  in  the  words  pronounced  from  heaven  then  and  at  the 
time  of  his  transfiguration  :  This  is  my  beloved  Son  in  whom  1  am  well 
pleased  (Matt.  2:17.  17  :  5).  The  connecting  link  between  the  Servant 
of  Isaiah  and  the  Son  of  Matthew,  is  afforded  by  the  nai^'  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  which  includes  both  ideas.  According  to  the  explanation  which 
has  just  been  given,  vlhg  is  neither  a  translation  of  "i3^,  nor  a  perversion 
of  its  meaning,  but  a  clearer  designation  of  the  subject  of  the  prophecy. 
That  Christ  was  sent  to  the  Jews  and  not  the  Gentiles,  is  only  true  of  his 
personal  ministry  and  not  of  his  whole  work  as  continued  by  his  followers, 
who  were  expressly  commissioned  to  go  into  all  the  world,  to  make  disci- 
ples of  all  nations,  the  only  restriction  imposed  being  that  of  beginning  at 


CHAPTER    XLII. 


49 


Jerusalem.     It  only  remains  to  be  considered,  whether  this  application  of  the 
title  and  the  description  to  our  Saviour  is  exclusive  of  all  others,   as  its 
advocates  commonly  maintain.       This  inquiry  is    suggested    by   the    fact 
which  all  interpreters  admit,  that  Israel,  the  chosen    people,  is   not   only 
called  by  this  same   name,  but    described    as    having  some  of  the   same 
attributes,  not  only  elsewhere,  but  in    this    very  context,  and    especially 
in    vs.    19,    20,    of   this    chapter,   where    any    other    explanation    of  the 
terms,  as  we  shall  see,  is  altogether  inadmissible.      Assuming,  then,  that 
the  Messiah   is  the  servant  of  Jehovah  introduced   at  the  beginning  of  the 
chapter,  there  are  only  two   ways  of  accounting  for  the  subsequent  use  of 
the  same  language  with   respect  to  Israel.     The  first   way  is  by  alleging 
a  total  difierence  of  subject  in  the  different  places  ;  which  in   fact  thoucrh 
not  in  form  is  to  decline  all  explanation  of  the   fact  in  question,  as  being 
either  needless  or  impossible.     That  such  a  twofold  application  of  equi- 
valent expressions    to  entirely  different  subjects   is  conceivable  and   must 
in  certain  cases    be  assumed,   there   is  no   need  of   denying.     But  unless 
we   abandon   all    attempt  to  interpret   language    upon   any  sett'ed    princi- 
ple, we  cannot  but  admit   that  nothing  short  of  exegetical  necessity  can 
justify  the  reference  of  the  same  descriptive  terms  to  different  subjects  in  one- 
and  the  same  context.     If  then  there  is  an  exegetical  hypothesis  by  which 
these  applications  can   be  reconciled,   without   doing   violence  to  usao-e  or 
analogy,  it  seems  to  be  clearly  entitled  to  the  preference.     Such  a  hypothesis, 
it  seems  to  me,  is  one  obscurely  stated   by  some  older   writers,  but  which 
may  be  more  satisfactorily  propounded  thus,  that  by  the  servant  of  Jehovah 
in  these  Later  Prophecies  of  Isaiah,  we  are  to  understand  the  Church  with 
its  Head,  or  rather  the  IMessiah  with  the  Church  which  is  his  body,  sent  by 
Jehovah   to  reclaim   the  world    fron)   its  apostasy   and  ruin.      This  agrees 
exactly  with  the  mission  both  of  the  Redeemer  and  his  people  as  described 
in  Scripture,  and  accounts  for  all  the  variations  which  embarrass  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  passages  in   question   upon   any  more  exclusive  exegetical 
hypothesis.     It  is  also   favoured    by   the  analogy  of  Deut.  18,  where  the 
promised    Prophet,    according    to    the    best    interpretation,   is    not    Christ 
exclusively,  but  Christ  as   the  Head  of  the   prophetic  body  who  possessed 
his  spirit.     Another  analogy  is  furnished  by  the  use  of  the  phrase  Abraham's 
seed,  both  individually  and  collectively       He  whom  Paul  describes  as  the 
seed  of  Abraham,  and  Moses  as  a  prophet  like  unto  himself,  in  a  personal 
but  not  an  exclusive  sense,  is  described  by  Isaiah  as  the  servant  of  Jehovah, 
in  his  own  person,  but  not  to  the  exclusion  of  his  people,  so  far  as  they  can 
be  considered  his  co-workers  or  his  representatives.     Objections  founded  on 
the  want  of  agreement  between  some  of  these  descriptions  and  the  recorded 
character  of  Israel,  are  connected  with  a  superficial  view  of  Israel  considered 
simply  as  a  nation  and  like  other  nations,  except  so  far  as  it  was  brought 

4 


50  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I  I . 

into  cxlernal  and  forlulloiis  connexion  with  the  true  religion.  An  essential 
feature  in  the  theory  |HO|)ose(l  is  that  this  race  was  set  apart  and  organized 
for  a  sjiecific  jiurpose,  and  that  its  national  character  is  constantly  subor- 
dinate to  its  ecclesiastical  relation.  There  is  precisely  the  same  variation 
in  the  language  used  respecting  it  as  in  the  use  and  ap|)lication  of  the  term 
iaxXr/diu  in  the  New  Testament.  Israel  is  sometimes  described  as  he  was 
meant  to  be,  and  as  he  should  have  been  ;  sometimes  as  he  actually  was. 
The  na:iie  is  sonietimcs  given  to  the  whole  race  and  sometimes  to  the 
faiiljful  portion  of  it,  or,  which  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  it  is  sometimes 
used  to  denote  the  real  sometimes  the  nominal  Israel.  The  apparent 
violence  of  applying  the  same  description  to  an  individual  ptn'son  and  a 
body,  will  be  lessened  by  considering,  that  t!ie  former  i.  e.  Christ  was  in 
the  highest  and  the  truest  sense  the  servant  of  Jehovah  and  his  messenger 
to  man,  but  that  his  body,  church,  or  people,  was  and  is  a  sharer  in  the 
same  vocation,  under  the  gospel  as  an  instrument  or  fellow-worker,  under 
the  law  as  a  type  or  representative  of  one  who  had  not  yet  become  visible. 
Hence  the  same  things  might  be  predicated  to  a  great  extent  of  both.  As 
the  IMessiah  was  the  servant  and  messenger  of  God  to  the  nations,  so  was 
Israel.  It  was  his  mission  also  to  diffuse  the  true  religion  and  reclaim  the 
nations.  From  the  very  first  it  was  intended  that  the  law  should  go  forth 
from  Zion  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem.  (Ch.  2:3)  The 
•national  restrictions  of  the  old  economy  were  not  intended  to  exclude  the 
gentiles  from  the  church,  but  to  preserve  the  church  from  assimilation  to  the 
■gentiles.  All  the  world  might  have  come  in  if  they  would  by  ccjmplying 
with  the  terms  presciib(Ml  ;  and  nothing  is  more  clear  from  the  Old  Testament 
than  the  fact  that  the  privileges  of  the  chosen  people  were  not  meant  to  be 
restricted  even  then  to  the  natural  d(>scendants  of  Israel,  for  this  would  have 
excluded  proselytes  entirely.  IMuliitudes  did  embrace  the  tiue  religion 
before  Clnist  came  ;  and  that  more  did  not,  was  partly  their  own  fault,  partly 
the  fault  of  the  chosen  people,  who  neglected  or  mistook  their  high  vocation 
as  the  Messiah's  representative  and  as  Jehovah's  messenger.  If  it  be  asked, 
how  the  different  ai)plications  of  this  honourable  title  are  to  be  distinguished 
so  as  to  avoid  confusion  or  capricious  inconsistency,  the  answer  is  as  follows. 
Where  the  terms  are  in  their  nature  ajiplicable  both  to  Clnist  as  the  Head 
and  to  his  Church  as  the  Body,  there  is  no  need  of  distinguishing  at  all 
betw(H'n  them.  Where  sinlul  imperfection  is  implied  in  what  is  said,  it 
must  of  course  be  ap|)lied  to  the  body  only.  Where  a  freedom  from  such 
imperfection  is  implied,  the  language  can  have  a  direct  and  literal  reference 
only  to  the  Head,  but  may  be  considered  as  descriptive  of  the  body,  in  so 
far  as  its  idea  or  design  is  concerned,  though  not  in  reference  to  its  actual 
condition.  Lastly,  when  any  (hing  is  said  implying  deity  or  infinite  merit, 
the  application  to  the  Head   becomes  not  only  predominant  but  exclusive. 


CHAPTERXLII.  51 

It  may  further  be  observed  that  as  the  Church,  acconJing  to  this  view  of  the 
matter,  represents  its  Head,  so  it  is  represented  by  its  leaders,  whetlier 
prophets,  priests,  or  kings  ;  and  as  all  tiiese  functions  were  to  meet  in  Christ, 
so  all  of  them  may  someiimes  be  particularly  prominent  in  prophecy.  With 
this  explanaiion,  the  hypoihesis  proposed  may  be  considered  as  approaching 
very  nearly  to  the  one  maintained  by  Umbreit  in  his  work  upon  the  Strvant 
of  God  (Knccht  Goitis,  Hamburg,  lS40),aswell  as  in  his  Commentary  on 
Isaiah.  A  similar  theory  is  broached  by  Ewald,  but  with  this  essential 
difference,  that  he  excludes  all  leference  fo  Christ,  and  identifies  the 
Messiali  of  these  prophecies  with  Cyrus.  A  correct  view  of  the  manifold 
and  variable  usagi>  of  the  title  f^in-;!  iz'j  is  given  by  Gesenius  in  his  Thesaurus 
and  the  later  editions  of  his  Lexicon.  How  far  the  theory  here  stated  with 
respect  to  the  nir.-i  izv  is  either  necessary  to  explain  the  prophecies  or  really 
consistent  with  their  terms  can  only  be  determined  by  a  specific  application 
of  the  principle  to  the  successive  parts  of  the  de-cription.  If  applied  to  this 
first  verse,  it  would  determine  its  interpretation,  as  describing  Israel,  the 
ancient  church,  to  be  in  a  peculiar  sense  the  servant  of  Jehovah,  protected 
and  sustained  by  Him,  enlightened  by  a  special  revelation,  not  for  his  own 
exclusive  use  but  as  a  source  of  saving  light  to  the  surrounding  nations.  At 
the  same  time  it  would  show  him  to  possess  this  character  not  in  his  own  ri'^ht 
but  in  that  of  anothei',  as  the  representative  and  instrument  of  one  who, 
though  he  was  with  God  and  was  God,  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant 
and  received  the  Spirit  without  measure,  that  he  might  be  a  light  to  lighten 
(he  gentiles  as  well  as  the  glory  of  his  people  Israel.  (Luke  '2  :  32.)  The 
reference  to  Christ  is  here  so  evident,  however,  that  there  is  no  need  of  sup- 
posing any  distinct  reference  to  his  people  at  all,  nor  any  advantage  in  so 
doing,  except  that  of  rendering  the  subsequent  verses  still  more  significant, 
as  descriptive  not  only  of  his  personal  ministry,  but  of  the  spirit  and  conduct 
of  his  people,  both  before  and  after  his  appearance. 

"\'.  2.  He  shall  not  cry  (or  call  aloud),  and  he  shall  not  raise  (his 
voice),  and  he  shall  not  let  his  voice  be  heard  in  the  street  (or  abroad, 
without).  The  Vulgate  strangely  supplies  =:-:Q  after  xia*]  (^non  accipiet 
personam),  and  so  obtains  the  customary  technical  expression  for  respect 
of  persons  or  judicial  partiality.  This  construction,  w  hich  was  probably 
suggested  by  the  supposed  analogy  of  ch.  11:3,  4,  is  precluded  by  its  want 
of  agreement  with  what  goes  before  and  follows.  The  same  objection  lies, 
though  in  a  less  degree,  against  Cocceius's  construction  of  the  vejb  as  a 
reflexive  (ic  ejf'eret),  which  is  moreover  not  grammatically  tenable.  It  is 
not  even  necessary  to  assume  an  ellipsis  of  the  noun  voice  in  the  fiist  clause, 
although  this  may  be  required  to  make  the  sense  clear  in  a  version.  The 
Hebrew   construction  is  continued    through   both   clauses,  i.  e.  both   verbs 


52  CHAPTERXLII. 

govern  the  same  noun.  Tie  shall  not  raise  nor  suffer  to  be  heard  in  the 
street  his  voice.  The  simple  meaning  of  the  verse  is,  he  shall  not  be  noisy 
but  quiet.  Giotius  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  fact  ihat  angry  persons  often 
speak  so  loud  at  home  as  to  be  heard  in  the  street.  Clericus  justly  denies 
any  special  reference  to  anger,  but  perhaps  goes  too  Air  when  he  translates 
S'laiii'i,  dabit  operam  ut  audiatur.  The  idea  seems  rather  to  be  that  of 
suffering  the  voice  to  be  heard  in  public  places.  As  applied  both  to  Christ 
and  to  the  Church,  this  verse  describes  a  silent,  unostentatious  method  of 
proceeding.  The  quotation  in  Malth.  12  :  18  is  commonly  explained  as 
referrino^  to  our  Saviour's  mild  and  modest  demeanour  ;  but  it  rather  has 
respect  to  the  nature  of  his  kingdom,  and  to  the  means  by  v^hich  it  was  to 
be  established.  His  forbidding  the  announcement  of  the  miracle  is  not 
recorded  simply  as  a  trait  of  personal  character,  but  rather  as  implying  that 
a  public  recognition  of  his  claims  \\  as  not  included  in  his  present  purpose. 

V.  3.  A  bruised  (or  crushed)  reed  he  ivill  not  break,  and  a  dim  nick 
he  will  not  quench  ;   by  the  truth  will  he  bring  forth  judgment.     Tiie  verbs 
of  the  first  clause  have  no  exact  equivalents  in  English.     The  first  appears 
to  mean   broken   but   not   broken  off,  which  last  is  denoted  by  the  other. 
Clericus  supposes  an  allusion   to  the  growing   plant,  which  may  be  broken 
and   yet  live,  but  if  entirely  broken  ofi'  must  die. — The  common    version, 
smoking  Jlax,  is  that  of  the   Septuagint  and   Vulgate.     The  Hebrew  noun 
really  denotes  flax  (Ex.  9  :  31),   but  the  adjective  means  faint  or  dim  ;   so 
that  in  order  to  convey  the  meaning  in  translation,  the  former  must  be  taken 
in  the  specific  sense  o(  wick,  which  it  also  has  in  ch.  43  :  17.     The  appli- 
cation of  these  figures  to  the  sparing  of  enemies,  or  the  indulgence  of  weak 
friends,  or  the   sustentation  of  sincere   but  feeble   faith,  is  too  specific  and 
exclusive.     The  verse  continues  the  description  of  the  mode  in  which  the 
Messiah  and  his  people  v/ere  to  bring  forth  judgment  to  the  natiovs,  or  in 
other  words  to  spread  the  true  religion.     It  was  not  to  be  by  clamour  or  by 
violence.     The  first  of  these  ideas  is  expressed  in  the  preceding  verse,  the 
last  in  this.     That  such  is  the   true   import  of  the  words  is  clear  from  the 
addition  of  the  last  clause,  which  would  be  unmeaning  if  the   verse  related 
merely  to  a  compassionate   and   sympathetic   temper.     That    this   verse  is 
included  in  Matthew's  quotation  (ch.  12  :  19),  shows  that  he  did  not  quote 
the  one  before  it  as  descriptive  of  a  modest  and   retiring  disposition.     For 
although  such  a  temper   might  be  proved  by  Christ's  prohibiting  the  publi- 
cation of  his   miracles,  this   prohibition   could   not   have   been   cited  as   an 
evidence  of  tenderness   and   mildness.     The  only  way  in  which  the  whole 
quotation  can  be  made  appropriate  to  the  case  in  hand,  is  by  supposing  that 
it  was  meant  to  be  descriptive  not  of  our  Saviour's  human   virtues,  but  of 
the  nature  of  his  kingdom  and  of  the  means  by  which  it  was  to  be  established. 


CHAPTERXLII.  53 

That  he  was  both  lowly  and  compassionate  is  true,  but  it  is  not  the  truth 
which  he  established  by  his  conduct  upon  this  occasion,  nor  the  truth  which 
the  evangelist  intended  to  illustrate  by  the  citation  of  these  words.  As  well 
in  their  oniiinal  connexion  as  in  Matthew's  application  of  them,  they  describe 
that  kingdom  u'hich  was  not  of  this  world  ;  which  canje  not  with  obser- 
vation (Luke  IT  :  20)  ;  which  was  neither  meat  nor  drink,  but  righteousness, 
and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost  (Rom.  14  :  17)  ;  which  was  founded 
and  promoted  not  by  might  nor  by  power,  but  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  ; 
and  of  which  its  founder  said  (John  18  :  36),  If  my  kingdom  were  of  this 
world,  then  ivouJd  my  servants  fght,  that  I  should  not  be  delivered  to  the 
Jews,  hat  now  is  my  kingdom  not  from  hence.  And  again  (John  18  :  27), 
when  Pilate  said  unto  him,  Art  thou  a  king  then  ?  Jesas  answered,  Thou 
sayest  (rightly)  that  lam  a  king;  to  this  end  tcxis  I  born,  and  jor  this 
cause  came  1  into  the  world,  thai  I  should  Lear  ivitncss  to  the  truth  ;  every 
one  that  is  of  ihe  truth  keareth  my  voice.  How  perfectly  does  this  august 
description  tally  with  the  great  prophetic  picture  of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah 
who  wa:5  to  bring  forth  judgment  to  the  nations,  and  in  doing  so  was  not  to 
cry  or  raise  his  voice  or  let  men  hear  it  in  the  streets,  not  by  brutal  force  to 
«jreak  the  cmshed  reed  or  quench  the  dim  wick,  but  to  conquer  by  healing 
and  imparting  strength.  This  passage  also  throws  light  on  the  true  sense 
of  the  somewhat  obscure  phrase  r-cs^ ,  b3'  showing  that  it  means  ivith 
respect  to  the  truth,  which  is  here  equivalent  to  saying  by  the  truth.  This 
construction,  by  presenting  an  antithesis  between  the  true  and  false  way  of 
bringing  forth  judgment  to  the  gentiles,  is  much  to  be  preferred  to  those 
constructions  which  explain  the  phrase  as  simply  meaning  in  truth  (i.  e. 
truly),  or  in  permanence  (\.  e,  surely),  or  unto  truth  (i.  e.  so  as  to  establish 
and  secure  it).  All  these  may  be  suggested  as  accessor}^  ideas ;  but  the 
jnain  idea  seems  to  be  the  one  first  stated,  namely,  that  the  end  in  question 
is  to  be  accomplished  not  by  clamour,  not  b}'  violence,  but  by  the  truth. 

V.  4-  He  shall  not  be  dim^  and  he  shall  not  be  crushed,  until  he  shall 
set  judgment  in  the  earth,  and  for  his  law  (he  isles  shall  wait.  He  shall 
neither  conquer  nor  be  conquered  by  violence.  This  verse  is  a  new  proof 
chat  the  one  before  it  does  not  describe  mere  tenderness  and  pity  for  the 
weak.  The  antithesis  would  then  be,  he  shall  neither  be  unkind  to  the 
infirm  nor  infirm  himself.  On  the  other  hand,  the  sense  is  clear  and  perti- 
nent, if  V.  3  means  tliat  he  shall  not  use  violence  towards  those  who  are 
weaker  than  himself,  and  v.  4  that  he  shall  not  suffer  it  from  those  who  are 
more  powerful  ;  or  rather  that  he  shall  not  subdue  others  nor  himself  be 
subdued  by  force.  Son^e  interpreters  have  been  misled  by  not  observing 
the  exact  correspondence  of  the  verbs  nns^  and  y^"^"^  with  the  adjectives 
"3  and  y'^"^-     The  same  oversight  has  led  Cocceiusand  "\^itringa  to  derive 


54  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I  I . 

Y^'^''■  from  y^'-i  to  run,  and  to  understand  the  clause  as  meaning  that  he  shall 
neither  be  remiss  nor  precipitate.  This  construction,  it  is  true,  makes  the 
clause  itself  more  antithetical  and  pointed,  bui  only  by  the  sacrifice  of  an 
obvious  and  beautiful  antith(;sis  between  it  and  the  first  clause  of  v.  3. — To 
set  or  place  judgment  in  the  cnrih  is  to  estabhsh  and  confirm  the  true  religion. 
— r3y  his  law  we  arc  to  understand  his  word  or  revelation,  considered  as  a 
rule  of  duty. — Here  again  the  islands  is  a  poetical  expression  for  the  nations, 
or  more  specifically  for  the  transmarine  and  distant  nations.  The  restriction 
of  the  term  to  Europe  and  Asia  Minor  (J.  D.  iMichaelis)  is  as  false  in 
geography  as  it  is  in  tast(\ — On  the  ground  that  the  heathen  cijuld  not  wait 
or  hope  for  that  of  which  they  were  entirely  ignorant,  some  understand  the 
last  verb  as  meaning  thci/  shall  trust  (i.  e.  after  they  have  heard,  they  shall 
believe  it).  Besides  the  preference  thus  given  to  a  secondary  over  a  pri- 
mary and  proper  sense,  the  general  meaning  of  the  clause,  and  its  connexion 
with  what  goes  before,  appear  to  be  misapprehended.  The  hojie  meant  is 
not  so  much  subjective  as  objective.  The  thing  described  is  not  the  feeling 
of  the  gentiles  towards  the  truth,  but  their  dependence  on  it  for  salvation, 
and  on  Christ  for  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  itself.  For  his  law  the  isles 
are  waiting  (or  must  ivaii),  and  till  it  comes  they  must  remain  in  darkness. 

V.  5.  Thus  snith  the  mighty  (^God),  Jehovah,  creating  the  heavens  and 
stretching  them  out,  spreading  the  earth  and  its  issues,  giving  breath  to  the 
people  on  it,  and  spirit  to  those  walking  in  it.  Ewald  refers  thus  saith  to 
the  preceding  verses,  wliicli  lie  su])poses  to  be  here  described  as  the  words 
of  God  himself.  But  as  the  following  verses  also  contain  the  words  of  God, 
there  is  no  need  of  departini,^  from  the  ordinary  usage  of  the  Scriptures, 
according  to  which  the  name  of  the  speaker  is  prefixed  to  the  report  of  what 
he  says.  We  may  indeed  assume  an  equal  connexion  with  what  goes  before 
and  follows,  as  if  he  had  said,  Thus  haih  Jehovah  spoken  and  he  speaks 
still  further. — The  appeal  is  so  directly  to  the  power  of  Jehovah,  that  the 
name  '^«!7,  which  is  expressive  of  tli;it  attribute,  ought  not  to  be  resolved 
into  the  general  term  God.  (See  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  75.) — The 
substitution  of  the  preterite  for  the  participle  in  the  English  Version  (Ae  that 
created  the  heavens  and  stretched  them  out)  is  not  only  a  gratuitous  departure 
from  the  form  of  the  original,  but  hides  from  the  English  reader  the  allusion 
to  the  creative  power  of  God  as  constantly  exercised  in  the  continued  exist- 
ence of  his  works.  The  same  figure  is  exhibited  more  fully  in  ch.  40  :  22, 
and  the  places  there  referred  to.  (See  above,  p.  25,  26.) — This  clause  is 
not  a  scientific  but  a  poetical  description.  To  the  eye,  the  heavens  have  the 
appearance  of  a  canopy  or  curtain,  and  the  verdant  surface  of  the  earth  that 
of  a  carpet.  There  is  no  need  therefore  of  supplying  a  distinct  verb  to 
govern  its  issues.     '"'P.'}:  though  originally  used  to  signify  the  beating  out  of 


CHAPTERXLII.  55 

metal  into  thin  plates,  has  acquired  in  usage  the  more  general  sense  of 
spreading  or  expanding,  and  is  equally  applicable  to  the  earth  as  an  appa- 
rently flat  surface,  and  to  its  vegetation  as  the  tapestry  which  covers  it. 
The  prophet's  picture  is  completely  marred  by  making  ""pn  mean  consolida- 
ting, which  is  wholly  inappropriate  to  ^"'Xiix^,  and  has  no  etymological 
foundation.  Even  "'P.'^  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  means  an  expanse  ; 
the  idea  of  a  firmament  comes  not  from  the  Hebrew  but  the  ancient  versions. 
No  single  English  word  is  so  appropriate  as  issues  to  express  both  the 
meaning  and  the  derivation  of  the  corresponding  one  in  Hebrew,  which 
denotes  the  things  that  come  out  of  the  earih,  its  produce,  growth,  or  vege- 
tation, with  particular  allusion  here  to  grass. — Here,  as  in  ch.  40  :  7,  the 
word  people  is  evidently  used  in  application  to  the  whole  human  race,  a  fact 
of  some  importance  in  the  exposition  of  what  follows.  Cocceius  alone 
supposes  an  antithesis  between  the  people  (i.  e.  Israel)  and  the  rest  of  men. 
If  this  had  been  intended,  the  word  spirit  would  no  doubt  have  been  con- 
nected with  the  former.  By  the  side  of  this  may  be  placed  Kimchi's  notion 
that  a  contrast  was  intended  between  men  and  brutes,  on  the  grovmd  that 
.T:'i"2  is  limited  in  usage  to  the  former.  =n"'Tr'i-  in  the  first  clause  of  this  verse 
is  explained  by  some  as  z  jjluralis  majesiaflcns,  by  others  as  a  singular  form 
peculiar  to  thenb  verbs  and  their  derivatives.  (See  the  Earlier  Prophecies, 
p.  72.) — The  enumeration  of  Jehovah's  attributes  in  this  verse  is  intended 
to  accredit  the  assurances  contained  in  the  context. 

V.  6.  T  Jehovah  have  called  thee  in  righteousness,  and  will  lay  hold  of 
thee  (or  hold  thee  fast),  and  ivill  keep  thee,  and  ivill  give  thee  for  a  covenant 
of  (he  people,  for  a  light  of  the  gentiles. — The  act  of  calling  here  implies 
selection,  designation,  and  providential  introduction  to  God's  service. — In 
righteousness,  i.  e.  in  the  exercise  of  righteousness  on  God's  part,  including 
the  fulfilment  of  his  promises  as  well  as  of  his  threatenings.  Unto  righteous- 
ness, i.  e.  to  be  righteous,  is  an  idea  foreign  from  the  context,  and  one  which 
would  not  have  been  thus  expressed  in  Hebrew.  Lowth's  translation  (for 
a  righteous  purpose),  although  too  paraphrastical,  may  be  considered  as 
substantially  id(>ntical  with  that  first  stated.  Those  of  Gesenius  (/o  so/i'o- 
tion)  and  Hitzig  (//j  grace)  are  equally  gratuitous  and  contrary  to  usage. — 
I  will  hold  thee  fast,  and  thereby  hold  thee  up,  sustain  thee.  (See  above, 
V.  I.) — Lowth  and  Barnes  esteem  it  an  improvement  of  the  common  English 
Version  to  change  keep  into  preserve. — I  will  give  thee  for,  i.  e.  create, 
appoint,  or  constitute  thee. — Hitzig  understands  by  =»  n"i"!3  a  covenant- 
people  (Bundesvolk),  Ewald  a  mediatorial  people  (Mittelsvolk),  both 
denoting  a  peo|)le  called  or  sent  to  act  as  a  niediator  or  a  bond  of  unioa 
between  God  and  the  nations.  But  tlii>.  although  it  yields  a  good  sense,  is 
a  German   and  English  rather  than  a  Hebrew  construction,  the  instances  ia 


56  CHAPTERXLII. 

which  a  prefixed  noun  quahfies  the  other  being  very  rare  and  dubious. 
This  objection  is  sufficient,  without  adding  that  the  phrase  as  thus  explained 
woukl  be  iiiapi)licahlo  to  an  iiuliviihial,  whereas  the  other  epithets  employed 
are  equally  a ppi'opriate  to  persons  and  coninmnities.  Most  other  writers  are 
agreed  in  adhering  to  the  obvious  construction  and  in  understanding  by  a 
covenant  of  the  jjcojjIc  a  negotiator  between  God  and  the  people.  This 
use  o{  covenant,  although  unusual,  is  in  itself  not  more  unnatural  or  forced 
than  that  of  light  in  the  next  phrase.  As  light  of  the  nations  must  mean 
a  source  or  dispenser  of  light  to  them,  so  covenant  of  people,  in  the  very 
same  sentence,  may  naturally  mean  the  dispenser  or  mediator  of  a  covenant 
with  them.  Tl)e  only  reason  why  the  one  appears  less  natural  and  simple 
than  the  other,  is  that  light  is  habitually  used  in  various  languages  both  for 
the  element  of  light  and  for  its  source  or  a  luminous  body,  whereas  no  such 
twofold  usage  of  the  other  word  exists,  although  analogies  might  easily  be 
traced  in  the  usage  of  such  words  us  justice  forjudge,  counsel  for  counsellor, 
in  both  which  cases  the  functionary  takes  the  name  of  that  which  he  dispenses 
or  administers. — But  supposing  this  to  be  the  true  construction  of  the  phrase, 
the  question  still  arises,  who  are  the  contracting  parties,  or  in  other  words, 
what  are  we  to  understand  by  people!  The  great  majority  of  writers  make 
it  mean  the  Jcivs,  the  chosen  people  of  Jehovah,  and  the  covenant  the 
mediator  or  negotiator  of  a  new  covenant  between  them  and  Jehovah, 
according  to  the  representation  in  Jer.  31  :  31-33.  To  this  it  may  be 
objected  that  ^v  has  not  the  article  as  usual  when  employed  in  that  sense, 
and  thai  even  with  the  article  it  is  applied  in  the  preceding  verse  to  mankind 
in  general.  To  this  it  may  be  added  that  the  word  rmi'ion^  in  the  next  clause 
may  as  well  be  exegetical  of  ptople  as  in  contrast  with  it.  The  first 
supposition  is  indeed  much  more  natural,  because  the  words  are  in  such  close 
connexion,  and  because  there  is  no  antithesis  between  tlie  correlative 
expressions,  light  and  covenant.  To  this  it  is  replied,  that  the  reference  to- 
Israel  in  this  case  is  determined  by  the  clear  unambiguous  analogy  ofch. 
49  :  8,  where  the  phrase  recurs  and  in  a  similar  connexion.  This  conclusion 
not  only  rests  upon  a  false  assumption  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  context  there, 
but  is  directly  contradicted  by  the  language  of  v.  6,  where  it  is  expressly- 
said  that  it  was  not  enough  for  Christ  to  be  the  restorer  of  Israel,  he  must 
also  be  a  light  to  the  gentiles ;  and  in  direct  continuation  of  this  promise  it  is 
added  in  v.  8,  without  the  show  of  a  distinction  or  antithesis,  that  he  should 
be  a  covenant  of  the  people  (i.  e.  of  the  nations),  to  restore  or  re-establish 
the  earth  (not  the  land,  which  is  a  perfectly  gratuitous  restriction),  to  cause 
to  be  inherited  the  desolate  heritages  (i.  e.  the  ruins  of  an  apostate  world), 
and  to  say  to  the  prisoners,  Go  forth,  the  arbitrary  reference  of  which  words 
to  the  Babylonish  exile  is  in  fact  the  only  ground  for  the  opinion  now- 
disputed.     So  Air  is  this  passage,  then,  from  disproving  the  wide  explanation 


CHAPTERXLII.  57 

of  the  word  C3  in  the  place  before  us,  that  it  really  affords  a  very  strong 
analogical  reason  in  its  favour,  and  we  need  no  longer  hesitate  to  understand 
the  clause  as  a  description  of  the  servant  of  Jehovah  in  the  character,  not 
only  of  a  light  (or  an  enlightener)  to  the  nations,  but  of  a  mediator  or 
negotiator  between  God  and  the  people,  i.  e.  men  in  general.  These  are 
epithets  applying  in  their  highest  sense  to  Christ  alone,  to  whom  they  are  in 
fact  applied  by  Simeon  (Luke  2  :  32)  and  Paul  (Acts  13  :  47).  That 
neither  of  these  quotes  the  phrase  a  covenant  of  the  pcoph,  does  not  prove 
that  it  has  no  relation  to  the  gentiles,  but  only  that  it  does  not  relate  to  them 
exclusively,  but  to  the  whole  human  race  ;  whereas  the  other  phrase,  as 
applying  specifically  to  the  gentiles,  and  as  being  less  ambiguous,  was 
exactly  suited  to  Paul's  purpose. — At  the  same  time  let  it  be  observed  that 
this  description  is  entirely  appropriate,  not  only  to  the  Head  but  to  the  Body 
also  in  subordination  to  him.  Not  only  the  INIessiah  but  the  Israel  of  God 
was  sent  to  be  a  mediator  or  connecting  link  between  Jehovah  and  the 
nations.  The  meaning  put  upon  =s  n^-ia  by  Hitzig  and  Ewald,  although 
not  philologically  accurate,  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  teachings  of  the 
Old  Testament  respecting  the  mission  and  vocation  of  Israel,  the  ancient 
church,  as  a  covenant-race  or  middle-people  between  God  and  the  apostate 
nations. 

V.  7.  To  open  blind  eyes,  to  bring  out  from  prison  thebondman,  from 
the  house  of  confinement  the  dwellers  in  darkness.  This  was  the  end  to  be 
accomplished  by  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  in  the  character  or  office  just 
ascribed  to  him.  The  spiritual  evils  to  be  remedied  are  represented  under 
the  figures  of  imprisonment  and  darkness,  the  removal  of  the  latter  having 
obvious  allusion  to  the  light  of  the  nations  in  v.  6.  The  fashionable  expla- 
nation of  these  words,  which  refers  them  to  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from 
exile,  is  encumbered  with  various  and  complex  difficulties.  What  is  said  of 
bondage  must  be  either  strictly  understood  or  metaphorically.  If  the  former 
be  preferred,  how  is  it  that  the  Prophet  did  not  use  expressions  more  exactly 
descriptive  of  the  state  of  Israel  in  Babylon  ?  A  whole  nation  carried 
captive  by  its  enemies  could  hardly  be  described  as  prisoners  in  dark  dun- 
geons. Knobel,  with  readiness  almost  rabbinical,  supplies  the  necessary 
fact  by  saying  that  a  part  of  the  Jews  were  imprisoned.  But  even  granting 
that  they  were  in  prison,  were  they  also  blind  ?  If  it  be  said  that  this  is  a 
figurative  representation  of  confinement  in  the  dark,  the  principle  of  strict 
interpretation  is  abandoned,  and  the  imprisonment  itself  may  be  a  metaphor  for 
other  evils.  There  is  then  left  no  specific  reason  for  applying  this  description 
to  the  exile  any  more  than  to  a  hundred  other  seasons  of  calamity.  Another 
and  more  positive  objection  to  this  limitation  is  that  it  connects  this  verse 
with  only  part  of  the  previous  description,  and  that   the  part  to  which  it 


5S  CHAPTERXLII. 

bears  the  least  resemblance.  Even  supposing  what  has  been  disproved, 
that  covenant  of  the  people  has  respect  to  Israel  alone,  how  is  it  that  the 
other  attribute,  a  h'ght  to  the  gentiles,  must  be  excUuk'd  in  iiiterpr(iing 
what  follows  ?  It  was  surely  not  in  this  capacity  that  tlie  Servant  of 
Jehovah  was  to  set  the  Jewish  exiles  free.  If  it  be  said  tliat  this  verse  has 
respect  to  only  one  of  these  two  characters,  this  supposition  is  not  only 
arbitrary,  but  doubly  objectionable  ;  first,  because  it  passes  over  the  nearest 
antecedent  (c^is  "ix)  to  connect  the  verse  exclusively  with  one  more  distant 
(pv  ri"''n2),  and  then,  because  it  passes  by  the  very  one  to  which  the  figures 
of  this  verse  have  most  analogy.  The  opening  of  the  eyes  and  the  deliver- 
ance of  those  that  sit  in  darkness  are  correlative  expressions  to  the  light  of 
the  srentiles,  which  on  this  account,  and  as  the  nearest  antecedent,  must 
decide  the  sense  of  this  verse,  if  that  sense  depend  on  either  of  these  attri- 
butes exclusively.  /  will  mnhe  thee  a  light  to  the  gentiles,  to  open  the 
blind  eyes  etc.  cannot  mean,  I  will  make  thee  an  instiuctor  of  the  heathen 
to  restore  the  Jews  from  captivity  in  Babylon.  Whether  the  verse  before 
us  therefore  be  strictly  or  figuratively  understood,  it  cannot  be  applied  to  the 
captivity  without  doing  violence  at  once  to  the  text  and  context.  The 
very  same  reasoning  applies  to  the  analogous  expressions  used  in  ch.  49:  9, 
and  thus  corroborates  our  previous  conclusion,  that  tb.e  context  in  neither  of 
these  places  favours,  much  less  requires,  the  restriction  of  cs  r^is  to  the 
Jews.  The  only  natural  interpretation  of  the  verse  before  us  is  that  which 
makes  it  figurative  like  the  one  preceding  it,  and  the  only  natural  interpretation 
of  its  figures  is  the  one  which  understands  them  as  descriptive  of  spiritual 
blindness  and  spiritual  bondage,  both  which  are  metaphors  of  constant 
application  to  the  natural  condition  of  mankind  in  the  Old  as  well  as  the 
New  Testament.  The  removal  of  these  evils  is  the  work  of  Christ,  as  the 
revealerof  the  Father  who  has  brought  life  and  immortality  to  lii^lit  :  but  in 
subordination  to  him,  and  as  his  representative,  his  church  may  n\<o  be 
correctly  represented  as  a  covenant  of  the  people  and  a  light  of  the  nations; 
since  the  law,  though  a  divine  revelation,  was  to  go  forth  from  Zion  and  the 
word  of  the  Lord  fiom  Jerusalem. 

V.  8.  lam  Jehovah,  that  is  my  name,  and  my  glory  to  another  will  I 
not  give,  and  my  praise  to  graven  images.  The  name  Jehovah  is  here  used 
with  emphasis  in  reference  to  its  etymological  import  as  descriptive  of  a  self- 
existent,  independent,  and  eternal  being.  There  is  no  sufficient  ground  for 
the  opinion  that  the  pronoun  x>in  is  ever  used  as  a  divine  name,  cogmite  and 
equivalent  to  Jehovah.  In  this  case  the  obvious  and  usual  construction  is 
entirely  satisfactory.  Graven  im.ages  are  here  put,  as  in  many  other  cases, 
for  idols  in  general,  without  regard  to  the  mode  of  their  formation.  The 
connexion  of  this  verse  with  what  precedes  may  seem  obscure,  but  adniits 


CHAPTERXLII.  59 

of  an  easy  explanation.  Frotn  the  assertion  of  Jehovah's  power  and  per- 
fection as  a  ground  for  his  people's  confidence,  the  Prophet  now  proceeds, 
by  a  natural  transition,  to  exhibit  it  in  contrast  with  the  impotence  of  those 
gods  in  whom  the  gentiles  trusted.  These  are  re()resented  not  only  as 
inferior  to  God,  but  as  his  enemies  and  rivals,  any  act  of  worship  paid  to 
whom  was  so  much  taken  from  what  he  claimed  as  his  own  and  as  his  own 
exclusively.  The  genei'al  doctrine  of  the  verse  is  that  true  and  false  relitj^ion 
cannot  coexist  ;  because,  however  tolerant  idolatry  may  be,  it  is  essential  to 
the  worship  of  Jehovah  to  be  perfectly  exclusive  of  all  other  gods.  This  is 
included  in  the  very  name  Jehovah,  and  accounts  for  its  solemn  proclamation 
here. 

V.  9.  The  first  (^OY  former)  things — /o,  thci/  have  come,  and  new  things 
T  (nm)  telling  ;  before  they  spring  forth  (^sprout  or  germinate)  I  will  make 
(or  let)  ijou  hear  (^them).  This  is  an  appeal  to  former  prophecies  already 
verified,  as  grounds  of  confiflence  in  those  yet  unfulfilled.  The  atten)pts 
which  have  been  made  to  give  specific  meanings  to  former  things  and  new 
things  as  denoting  certain  classes  of  prophecies,  are  unsuccessful  because 
perfectly  gratuitous.  The  most  plausible  hypothesis  of  this  kind  is  Vitringa's, 
which  applies  the  one  term  to  the  prophecies  respecting  Cyrus  and  the 
Babylonish  exile,  the  oiher  to  the  prophecies  respecting  the  Messiah  and 
the  new  dispensation.  But  the  simple  meaning  of  the  words  appears  to  be, 
that  as  former  prophecies  (not  of  Isaiah  but  of  older  prophets)  had  come  to 
pass,  so  those  now  uttered  should  be  likewise  verified.  The  strong  and 
beautiful  expression  in  the  last  clause  can  only  mean  that  the  events  about 
to  be  predicted  were  l)eyond  the  reach  of  human  foresight,  and  is  therefore 
destructive  of  the  modern  notion,  that  these  prophecies  were  written  after 
Cyrus  had  appeared,  and  at  a  time  when  the  fui-ther  events  of  his  history 
could  be  foreseen  by  an  ol)server  of  unusual  sagaciiy.  Such  a  prognosli- 
cator,  unless  he  was  also  a  deliberate  deceiver,  a  char^e  which  no  one  brino^s 
against  this  writer,  could  not  have  said  of  what  he  thus  foresaw,  that  he 
announced  it  before  it  had  begun  to  germinate,  i.  e.  while  the  seed  was  in 
the  earth,  and  before  any  outward  indications  of  the  plant  could  be  perceived. 
As  this  embraces  all  the  writer's  prophecies,  it  throws  the  date  of  composi- 
tion back  to  a  period  bef  )re  the  rise  of  Cyrus,  and  thereby  helps  to  invalidate 
the  arguments  in  favour  of  )-egarfling  it  as  contemporaneous  with  the  Baby- 
lonish exile. 

V.  10.  Sing  to  Jehovah  a  neto  song,  his  praise  from  the  end  of  the 
earth,  (ijc)  going  down  to  the  sea  and  its  fulness,  isles  and  their  inhabitants  ! 
To  sing  a  new  song,  according  to  Old  Testament  usage,  is  to  praise  God 
for  some  n(nv  manifestation  ol   his  power  and  goodness.      It   implies,  there- 


60  CHAPTERXLII. 

fore,  not  only  fresh  praise,  but  a  fresh  occasion  for  it.  Reduced  to  ordinary 
prose  style,  it  is  a  jjrediction  that  changes  are  to  take  place  joyfully  affecting 
the  condition  of  the  whole  world.  That  this  is  a  hyperhole,  relating  to  the 
restoration  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon,  is  too  gratuitous  and  forced  a  suppo- 
sition to  be  imposed  upon  any  reader  of  the  prophecy  against  his  will.  Let 
those  who  can,  receive  and  make  the  most  of  it.  The  great  majority  of 
readers  will  be  apt  to  reject  an  assumption  w  liicli  has  no  foundation  in  the 
text  and  which  reduces  a  sublime  prediction  to  an  extravaganza. — Gesenius, 
for  some  reason  not  explained,  chooses  to  read  at  instead  oi  from  the  end. 
The  obvious  meaning  of  the  phrase  is,  that  the  sound  of  praise  should  be 
heard  coming  from  the  remotest  quarters. — lis  fulness  may  either  be  con- 
nected with  the  sea  and  both  dependent  on  go  down  (to  the  sea  and  its 
fulness),  or  regarded  as  a  distinct  object  of  address.  In  the  latter  case,  the 
marine  animals  would  seem  to  be  intended  ;  in  the  former,  the  whole  mass 
of  water  with  its  contents  ;  the  last  is  more  poetical  and  natural.  The 
antithesis  is  then  between  the  sea  with  its  frequenters  on  the  one  hand  and 
the  isles  with  their  inhabitants  on  the  other. 

V.  11,  The  desert  and  its  iotvns  shall  raise  {the  voice),  the  enclosures 
(or  encampments,  in  which)  Kedar  dwells  ;  the  dwellers  in  the  Rock  shall 
shout,  from  the  top  of  mountains  shall  they  cry  aloud.  Tiiis  is  a  direct 
continuation  of  the  previous  description,  in  which  the  whole  world  is  repre- 
sented as  exulting  in  the  promised  change.  The  leference  of  this  verse  to 
the  course  of  the  returning  exiles  through  the  intervening  desert  is  forbidden 
by  the  mention  of  the  sea  and  its  fulness,  the  isles  and  the  ends  of  the  earth, 
in  the  preceding  and  following  verses.  If  these  are  not  all  pans  of  the  same 
great  picture,  it  is  impossible  to  frame  one.  If  they  are,  it  is  absurd  to  take 
the  first  and  last  parts  in  their  widest  sense  as  an  extravagant  hyperbole, 
and  that  which  is  between  them  in  its  strictest  sense  as  a  literal  description. 
The  only  consistent  supposition  is  that  sea,  islands,  deserts,  mountains, 
towns,  and  camps,  are  put  together  as  poetical  ingredients  of  the  general 
conception,  that  the  earth  in  all  its  parts  shall  have  occasion  to  rejoice, — The 
mention  of  cities  as  existing  in  the  wilderness  appears  less  strange  in  the 
original  than  in  a  modern  version,  because  both  the  leading  words  ("^^l^  and 
"1"^")  have  a  greater  latitude  of  meaning  than  their  usual  equivalents,  the  first 
denoting  properly  a  pasture-ground,  and  being  applicable  therefore  to  any 
uncultivated  region  whether  uninhabited  or  not,  the  other  answering  to  town 
in  its  widest  English  sense  inclusive  of  both  villages  and  cities.  There  is  no 
need  therefore  of  supposing  a  particular  allusion  to  oases  in  the  arid  desert, 
or  of  assuming,  as  Gesenius  does  in  his  Tliesaurus,  that  ~^-J  sometimes  means 
nothing  more  than  a  military  station,  post,  or  watch-tower.  (See  the  Earlier 
Prophecies,  p.  8.) — The  translation  of  ni-^an  by  villages  is  too  restricted, 


CHAPTERXLII.  61 

since  the  Hebrew  word  is  applicable  also  to  collections  of  tents  or  nomadic 
encampments,  which  appears  to  be  the  prominent  idea  here.  Kedar  was 
the  second  son  of  Ishmael.  (Gen.  25:  13.)  Here,  as  in  ch.  21  :  16,  the 
name  is  put  for  his  descendants,  or  by  a  natural  metonymy  for  the  Arabians 
in  general.  The  rabbinical  name  for  the  Arabic  language  is  the  tongue  of 
Kedar.  The  Septuagint  takes  it  as  the  name  of  the  country  (ond  those 
inhabitivg  Kedar).  The  Vulgate  makes  this  clause  a  promise  (Kedar  shall 
dwell  in  houses),  and  the  preceding  verb  a  passive  (^let  the  desert  and  its 
ioivns  be  exalted).  Cocceius  has  the  same  construction,  but  gives  both  the 
verbs  an  imperative  meaning,  and  follows  the  Septuagint  in  explaining 
Kedar  (efferat  se  desertnm  ct  oppida  (jus  ;  per  pagos  habit etur  Kedarena). 
Most  writers,  ancient  and  modern,  have  regarded  a  relative  construction  as 
more  natural  (ivhich  Kedar  doth  inhabit).  The  use  of  Kedar  as  a  feminine 
is  contrary  to  general  usage,  which  distinguishes  between  the  name  of  the 
country  as  feminine  and  that  of  the  nation  possessing  it  as  masculine.  The 
rabbins  explain  it  by  supposing  an  ellipsis  of  nns?  before  it.  More  probably, 
however,  it  is  an  irregularity  or  license  of  construction,  such  as  we  have 
seen  already  in  ch.  21  :  2  and  elsewhere. — Vitringa,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  and 
some  later  writers,  explain  sh'o  as  the  proper  name  of  Petra  ;  but  the  whole 
connexion  renders  it  more  natural  to  take  it  in  its  general  sense  oi  rock,  and 
as  corresponding  not  so  much  to  Kedar  as  to  the  appellatives,  desert,  towns, 
encampments,  mountains. 

V.  12.  They  shall  place  (or  give)  to  Jehovah  honour,  and  his  praise  in 
the  islands  they  shall  shoio  forth  (or  declare).  Still  another  mode  of  sav- 
ing, the  whole  world  shall  praise  him.  The  islands  are  again  mentioned, 
either  as  one  out  of  several  particulars  before  referred  to,  or  with  emphasis, 
as  if  he  had  said,  even  in  the  islands,  beyond  sea,  and  by  implication  in  the 
furthest  regions. — As  the  verb  to  give,  in  Hebrew  usage,  has  the  secondary 
sense  of  placing,  so  the  verb  to  place  is  occasionally  used  as  an  equivalent 
to  that  of  giving.  (See  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  445.) — -The  translation 
of  the  verbs  in  this  verse  as  imperatives  (let  (hem  give  glory  and  declare), 
although  substantially  correct,  is  a  needless  departure  from  the  form  of  the 
original,  in  which  the  idea  of  command  or  exhortation  is  sufficiently  implied 
though  not  expressed. — The  verbs  do  not  agree  with  the  series  of  nouns  in 
the  foregoing  verse  (desert,  towns,  etc.),  for  these  could  not  celebrate 
Jehovah  in  the  islands.  The  construction  is  indefinite,  they,  i.  e.  men  in 
general,  a  form  of  speech  of  far  more  frequent  occurrence  in  Hebrew  than 
would  be  suspected  by  a  reader  of  the  English  Bible. 

V.  13.  Jehovah,  like  a  strong  one,  will  go  forth ;  like  a  warrior  (lite- 
rally a  man  of  battle)  he  tvill  rouse  (his)  zeal ;  he  will  shout,  yea   he  will 


62  C  II  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I  I . 

cry;  against  his  foes  he  ic ill  make  (or  show)  himself  strong.  From  the 
eliect  he  now  reverts  to  tlie  eOlcient  cause.  The  miiveijal  joy  before 
described  is  to  arise  fioin  Jciiovah's  tiiuiiiph  over  liis  enemies.  '1  he  mar- 
tial fiu^ures  of  the  verse  an',  intellijiible  in  themselves  and  all  familiar  to  the 
usa«re  of  the  Scriptures. — Lowih  and  Barnes  amend  the  coiimion  version  of 
the  6rst  clause  by  readinir,  he  shall  march  forth  like  a  hero.  The  modern 
Germans  also  use  the  word  Held  (hero).  Liilhcr  and  Calvin  pvek-r  giant. 
It  may  be  doubted  whether  any  English  word  is  more  ap|)ropriate  oi-  striking 
than  the  strict  translalion  strong  or  mighty.  To  go  J'orih  is  the  connuon 
Hebrew  phrase  for  going  out  to  war  or  batile.  (See  above,  on  ch.  40  :  26.) 
Junius  and  Tremellius  understand  the  j)lural  battles  as  a  superlative  expres- 
sion, and  translate  the  phrase  vir  bellicosissimus  evigilans  zelo.  The  ver- 
sions of  Clericus  (vir  rniliiaris)  and  Viiringa  (^erilus  bellator)  greatly 
weaken  the  expression.  r;x:p  may  either  have  its  general  sense  of  ardour, 
stronf  and  violent  affection  of  whatever  kind,  or  its  more  specific  sense  of 
jealousy  or  sensitive  regaid  for  his  own  honour  and  for  the  welfare  of  his 
people.  (See  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  165.)  The  idea  is  that  of  an 
ancient  warrior  exciting  his  ow  n  courage  by  a  shout  or  w  :ir-cry. — The  last 
clause  may  be  understood  to  mean,  he  shall  prevail  over  his  enemies  ;  but 
although  this  idea  is  undoubtedly  included,  it  is  best  lo  retain  the  reflexive 
form  and  import  of  the  verb,  as  far  as  may  be,  in  translation. 

V.  M.  1  have  long  been  still  (saying)  1  will  hold  my  peace,  I  will 
restrain  myself.  (But  now)  like  the  travailing  (woman)  I  ivill  shriek,  I 
will  pant  and  gasp  at  once.  The  consecution  of  the  tenses  in  the  first  clause 
has  occasioned  the  most  opposite  constructions.  Of  these  the  most  violent  and 
uno-rammatical  is  that  of  Augusti,  who  translates  all  the  verbs  of  the  verse  as 
preterites.  With  this  exception,  it  appears  to  be  agreed  on  all  hands  that  the 
verbs  of  the  last  clause  are  either  futures  proper,  or  descriptive  presents,  and 
the  only  question  is  in  reference  to  those  of  the  first.  According  to  Luther, 
these  are  all  presents  ;  while  the  Vulgate,  followed  by  most  modern  writers, 
makes  them  all  refer  to  past  time.  That  such  assimilations  do  occur,  is  certain ; 
but  a  general  maxim  of  interpretation  makes  it  highly  desirable  to  regard  the 
distinction  of  the  tenses,  where  we  can,  as  intentional  and  significant.  Lowth 
and  Ewald  accordingly  follow  the  Sepiuagint  in  retaining  the  future  form  of 
the  second  and  third  verbs,  but  read  them  interrogatively  (I  have  long  been 
silent.  Shall  1  hold  my  peace  and  restrain  myself  for  ever?).  This  involves  the 
necessity  of  reading  nM:-bn  (for  ever  ?)  and  connecting  it  against  the  accents 
with  what  follows.  It  is  true  that  interrogative  sentences,  without  the 
interrogative  particle  expressed,  are  not  unknown  to  Hebrew  usage  ;  but 
their  occurrence  is  comparatively  rare,  and  ought  not  to  be  assumed  without 
necessity,  which  of  course  has  no  existence  if  the  clause  can  be  affirmatively 


CHAPTERXLIl.  63 

read  without  abandoning  the  strict  sense  of  the  futin-e.  This  con  be  done, 
as  may  be  seen  in  the  iianslatlon  above  given,  by  regarding  the  second  and 
third  verlisas  the  expression  of  his  own  deierniination  or  intention  while  ihe 
silence  lasted.  The  omission  of  the  verb  to  say  before  such  repetitions 
or  citations  is  not  only  frequent  in  general  usage,  but  the  more  natural 
in  this  case  from  the  fact  ihat  this  whole  verse  is  universally  regarded  as  the 
words  of  God  himself,  although  he  is  not  expressly  introduced  as  the  speaker. 
The  necessity  of  su})plying  (at  least  in  thought)  the  words  but  now  before 
the  last  clause,  is  not  peculiar  to  this  view  of  the  passage,  but  common  lo  it 
with  all  others,  except  Augusti's  paradoKical  construction. — The  word  n:;-;x 
is  twice  used  elsew  here  by  Isaiah  (30  :  0.  59  :  5)  as  a  noun  meaning  a  viper 
or  some  other  venomous  serpent,  in  wdiich  sense  it  is  also  used  by  Job  (20  : 
16).  The  general  piinciples  of  analogical  intei  pretalion  would  requiie  this 
sense  to  be  retained  here  ;  but  the  only  writers  w  ho  have  ventured  so  to  do 
are  Junius  and  Tremellius  who  translate  the  c\a.use,  ut  jjai-iuricntcm  vipiram 
desolobo.  Even  the  rabbins  give  the  word  the  sense  of  crying,  w  hich  is 
j)lainly  a  conjecture  from  the  context.  I3ochart  attempts  a  compromise 
between  the  two  opinions,  l)y  supposing  that  the  word  originally  means  to 
hiss  like  a  serpent;  and  Gesenius  connects  it  with  nss  to  blow.  The  only 
oltjection  to  the  common  version,  shriek  ov  scream,  is  that  it  seems  too  sirono- 
both  for  the  etymology  and  the  analogy  of  the  verbs  w  hich  follow  and  w  hich 
seem  to  denote  a  suppressed  sound  rather  than  a  loud  one,  I  ivill pant  and 
gasp  at  once.  There  is  indeed  another  veiy  ancient  explanation  of  these 
two  verbs,  given  in  the  Vulgate  and  by  Calvin,  Grotius,  Hitzig,  and  Hen- 
dewerk.  as  well  as  in  the  English  Version,  I  will  destroy  and  devour  at  once. 
This  refers  cii-x  to  the  root  -^c  to  lay  waste  (and  more  generally  to  destroy), 
and  gives  CixttJ  tlie  sense  of  swallowing  and  then  (like  :."t3)  that  of  destroy- 
ing. But  ~|Xd  means  elsewhere  to  pant  or  gasp  ;  and  ci"x  may  be  readily 
regarded  as  a  synonyme,  if  derived  from  nii;:  to  breathe,  o(  which  it  would  be 
the  Jiatural  future.  It  is  true  that  this  verb  does  not  occur  elsew  here,  but 
its  derivative  ^"^'Jf^  breath  is  of  perpetual  occurrence  ;  and  the  very  same 
writers  who  reject  tlie  derivation  from  cJ:  on  this  ground,  assume  that  of 
nrJEX  from  ~V's  not  only  in  the  absence  of  any  othei-  instar)ce,  but  in  opposi- 
liiiu  to  the  usage  which  determines  it  lo  be  a  noun.  The  authority  of 
Gesenius  may  be  cited  upon  both  sides  of  this  question,  not  only  fiom  iiis 
earlier  and  later  works  but  from  the  last  edition  of  his  Lexicon,  in  which  the 
two  explanations  of  this  clause  are  separ;it(  ly  given  as  correct,  the  one 
under  "iXiu,  which  is  explained  as  meaning  to  breathe  hard,  to  j)ant,  lo  blow, 
"  e.  g.  of  an  angry  person  Js.  42:  14,"  the  other  under  criij,  where  the  two 
verbs  are  translated,  "  I  will  destroy  and  gulp  down  together."  The  para- 
phrase added  in  the  latter  case,  "  my  wrath,  long  restiained,  1  will  now 
let  break  forth,"  is  no  doubt  the  true  sense  of  the  verse  on  either  supposition. 


64  CHAPTERXLII. 

V.  15.  /  will  lay  waste  mountains  and  hills,  and  all  their  herbage  will 
I  dry  up  ;  and  I  will  turn  (literally  place)  streams  to  islands,  and  pools  (or 
la]{es)  will  I  dry  up.  Having  described  the  effect  and  the  cause  of  the 
great  future  change,  he  now  describes  the  change  itself,  under  the  common 
form  of  a  complete  revolution  in  the  face  of  nature,  sometimes  with  special 
reference  to  the  heavens  (ch.  K3  :  JO),  sometimes  (as  here  and  in  ch. 
35  :  6,  7)  to  the  earth.  It  is  strange  that,  with  these  analogies  in  view  and 
after  such  descriptions  as  those  previously  given,  any  should  still  suppose  that 
by  mountains  and  hills  we  are  here  to  understand  states  and  governments,  and 
by  their  herbs  the  citizens  or  subjects.  There  is  more  probability  in  the 
opinion  that  the  verse  contains  an  allusion  to  the  ancient  cultivation  of  the 
hills  of  Palestine,  by  means  of  terraces,  many  of  which  are  still  in  existence. 
(See  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  134.)  Houbigant  and  Lowth  read  D'^'^is 
(dry  deserts'),  which  is  not  only  needless  but  contrary  to  usage,  as  ci*^ 
no  where  signifies  deserts  themselves,  but  always  their  inhabitants.  Gese- 
nius  and  the  other  modern  writers  suppose  c^'^n  to  be  here  used  in  the  sense 
of  dry  land  as  opposed  to  water.  The  necessity  of  this  explanation  may 
however  be  avoided  by  adopting  the  ingenious  suggestion  of  Clericus,  that 
what  is  here  described  is  the  actual  appearance  of  islands  in  the  channels  of 
the  streams  on  the  subsiding  of  the  water. — The  drying  of  the  bed  of  the 
Euphrates  by  Cyrus  can  at  the  utmost  only  be  the  subject  of  an  indirect 
allusion.  A  literal  prophecy  of  that  event  would  be  entirely  misplaced  in  a 
series  of  bold  metaphorical  descriptions. — Rosenmiiller  goes  to  an  extrava- 
gant length  in  attempting  to  connect  this  verse  with  the  preceding  context 
by  explaining  it  to  mean  that  the  excited  warrior  will  dry  up  vegetation 
with  his  burning  breath. 

V.  16.  And  I  will  make  the  blind  walk  in  a  way  they  knew  not,  in 
paths  ihey  knew  not  I  will  make  them  tread ;  I  will  set  (or  tuini)  dark- 
ness before  them  to  light,  and  obliquities  to  straightness.  These  are  the 
words;  I  have  made  them  (or  done  them)  and  have  not  left  them.  The 
particle  before  the  first  verb  is  conversive  i.  e.  gives  a  future  meaning  to  the 
preterite,  because  preceded  by  the  future  proper.  (See  Nordheimer,  <§>  219.) 
The  ellipsis  of  the  relative,  which  twice  occurs  in  this  clause,  is  pre- 
cisely the  same  both  in  Hebrew  and  in  English. —  ""-^^P"-.  may  be  translated 
crooked  or  uneven  places,  as  opposed  to  what  is  level,  or  to  superficial 
rectitude.  (See  above,  on  ch.  40  :  4,  p.  4.)  The  combination  of  these 
two  antitheses  (light  and  dark,  crooked  and  straight)  shows  clearly  that  they 
are  both  metaphorical  expressions  for  the  same  thing  that  is  represented 
under  other  figures  in  the  verse  preceding,  viz.  total  change ;  in  what 
respect  and  by  what  means,  the  metaphors  themselves  do  not  determine. 
And  yet  some  writers  understand  the  first  clause  as  specifically  meaning, 


CHAPTERXLII.  65 

that  the  exiles  in  Bahylon  should  be  delivered  at  a  time  and  in  a  manner 
which  they  had  not  expected;  while  another  class  apply  the  words  exclu- 
sively to  spiritual  exercise  or  religious  experience.  To  both  these  objects  the 
description  admits  of  an  easy  application  ;  but  neither  of  them  is  to  be 
considered  its  specific  subject.  It  is  impossible,  without  the  utmost  violence, 
to  separate  this  one  link  from  the  chain  of  which  it  forms  a  part,  that  is  to 
say,  from  the  series  of  strong  and  varied  metaphors,  by  which  the  Prophet  is 
expressing  the  idea  of  abrupt  and  total  change.  The  same  thing  that  Is 
meant  by  the  wasting  of  cultivated  hills,  the  withering  of  herbage,  and  the 
drying  up  of  streams  and  lakes,  is  also  meant  by  the  leading  of  blind  men  in 
a  new  path,  i.  e.  causing  them  to  witness  things  of  which  they  had  had  no 
previous  experience. — The  usual  construction  of  the  last  clause  supplies 
a  relative  before  the  leading  verb  and  takes  its  suffix  as  a  dative — '  these 
are  the  words  or  things  which  I  have  done  for  them  and  have  not  left 
them.'  Another  construction  separates  the  members  as  distinct  proposi- 
tions— '  these  are  the  words  (or  the  things  which  I  have  promised  to  the 
people)  ;  I  have  made  them  and  have  not  forsaken  them.'  The  simplest 
and  most  regular  construction  is  that  given  by  Jerome  and  Cocceius, 
which  refers  the  pronouns  not  to  a  noun  understood  but  to  the  expressed 
antecedent  :  These  are  the  words  (i.  e.  my  promises),  /  have  performed 
them  and  have  not  abandoned  them,  that  is  to  say,  I  have  not  relinquished 
my  design  until  it  was  accomplished.  (Compare  the  last  clause  of  Ezekiel 
17  :  24.)  The  translation  of  these  verbs  as  futures  has  arisen  merely  from 
a  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  interpreter  that  tlie  words  ought  to  contain 
a  promise  ;  whereas  the  promise  is  implied  or  rather  superseded  by  the 
declaration  that  the  work  is  done  already,  or  at  least  that  the  effect  is 
already  secured.  The  usual  construction,  which  makes  one  a  preterite  and 
one  a  future,  is  doubly  arbitrary  and  capricious. 

V.  17.  Theij  are  turned  hack,  they  shall  be  ashamed  ivith  shame  (i.  e. 
utterly  ashamed),  those  trusting  in  the  graven  image,  those  saying  to  the 
molten  image.  Ye  are  our  gods.  This  verse  describes  the  effect  to  be  pro- 
duced by  the  expected  changes  on  the  enemies  of  God  and  tlie  worshippers 
of  idols.  They  are  turned  back,  utterly  defeated,  foiled  in  their  malignant 
opposition.  Nor  is  this  all ;  for  they  are  yet  to  be  utterly  ashamed,  con- 
founded, disappointed,  and  disgraced.  In  the  last  clause  it  is  plain  that  the 
graven  and  molten  image  are  separated  only  by  the  parallelism,  because  the 
address  at  the  end  is  in  the  plural  form,  not  thou  art,  but  ye  are  our  gods. 
On  the  usage  of  these  two  nouns,  sec  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  519. 

V.  18.  Ye  deaf,  hear!  and  ye  blind,  look  to  see!  From  the  con- 
nexion, this  would  seem  to  be  a  call  upon  the  worshippers  of  idols,  to  open 


QQ  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I  I . 

iheir  eyes  and  oars,  and  become  conscious  of  iheir  own  delusions. — The 
infinitive  at  the  enci  ol' tlie  sentence  does  not  express  the  manner  but  the 
purpose  of  the  act  required.  Vitringa's  version  therefore  (videndo  intuemini) 
is  less  correct  than  that  ol' Jerome  (intuemini  ad  videndum). 

V.  19.    IVho   (is)   blind  but   my  servant,  and  deaf  like  my  messenger 
(whom)  I  icill  send  J      J I  ho  (is)  blind  like  the  devoted  one,  and  blind  like 
the  servant  of  Jehovah.      Wliy  ^llould  he  call  the  heathen  blind  and  deaf, 
when   Israel    himself,  with  all  his  honours  and   advantages,  refused  to  see  or 
hear  ?     The   very  people  whose   mission   and  vocation  it  was  to  make  the 
gentiles  see   and    hear,  seemed   to  emulate    their  insensibility.     The  most 
difhcult  expression  in  this  verse  is  c^c?3  ,  which  the  Seventy  seem  to  have 
read  i-br-c  and  understood  as  meaning  those  that  have  dominion  over  ihem. 
The   various   explanations  of  the  common   text  may  all  be  reduced  to  two 
distinct  senses  of  the  verbal  root,  viz.  that  of  being  at  peace  and  that  of  being 
perfect  or   complete.     The  latter   meaning  is   assumed  by  Luther,  Calvin, 
Cocceius,  and  Vitringa  ;   while  Clericus  modifies  it  so  as  to  mean  a  man  of 
consummate  ivlsdom,  and    Lovvili  one  'perfectly  instructed.     On  the  other 
hypothesis,  Junius   renders  it  donafus  pace;  Gesenius,  the  friend  of  God ; 
Hiizi"',  E\\  aid,  and   Uinbreit,  the  devoted  or  the  God-devoted.     This  last  is 
favoured  by  the  analogy  of  (^JLww.xi  in  Arabic,  tl)e  name  by  which  the  Moham- 
medans   desciil)o   themselves,  and    which   denotes  one  who  gives    himself  to 
God.      From  the  use  of  the   Piel  in  the  sense  of  completing,  making  good, 
repaying,  are  derived  the  Vulgate  version  (vcnundatus)  and  that  of  Kosen- 
muller  (redemtus).     As  to  the  application  oi  the  term  here,  Clericus  supposes 
that  it  means  the  High  Priest  or  some  eminent  person  of  the  sacerdotal  order. 
But   the  great  majority  of  writers  understand  it  as  descriptive  of  Israel,  the 
chosen  people.     The  ohjeciion  arising  from  the  use  of  similar  expressions  at 
the  beginning  of  the  chaj)ter  with  respect  to  the  Messiah  is  usually  set  aside 
by  arbitrarily  assuming  entire  diversity  of  subject.      Henderson  alone  has  the 
intrepidity  to  umlerstand  this  verse  of  the  Messiah   likewise,  accounting  for 
the   application   of  such    epithets   to  such  a   subject   by  assuming    that  it 
expresses    the   opinion   of  the   unbelieving   Jews   respecting    Christ.     The 
obvious  objection   to  this  mode  of  exposition  is,  that  it  opens   the   door  to 
endless  license  of  interpretation,  by  admitting  that  a  passage  may  be  referred 
at  will  to  the  subj(>ct  which  it  is  least  adapted  to  describe,  by  simply  making 
it  express  the  mind  not  of  the  writer,  as  it  seems  to  do,  but  of  another  party 
not  expressly  mentioned.     A  purely  arbitrary  suj)position  cannot  be  justified 
by  the  assumption  of  another  like  it.     The  true   solution  of  the  difficulty 
seems  to  be  the  one  already  given  in  explaining  the  first  verse,  viz.  that  the 
Servant  of  Jehovah  is  a  title  applying  not  only  to  the  Head  but  to  the  Body 
also.     Here,  where  the  language  implies  censure  and  reproach,  the  terms 


CHAPTERXLII.  Q^ 

must  be  referred  exclusively  to  Israel,  the  messenger  whom  God  had  sent  to 
open  the  eyes  of  the  oiher  nations,  but  who  had  himself  become  wilfully 
blind.  The  future  n^^"^.  implies  that  the  mission  was  not  yet  fulfilled. 
Jerome's  construciion,  unto  ivhom  I  sent  my  messtngers,  is  wholly  ung;ram- 
matical  and  a  mere  expedient  to  avoid  a  seeming  difficulty.  It  is  scarcely 
credible  that  Clericus  seems  half-inclined  to  take  "^^x^^  as  the  proper  name 
of  Mulachi. 

V.  20.  Thou  hast  seen  many  things,  and  wilt  not  observe.  (Sent)  to 
open  ears !  and  he  will  not  hear.  In  t'lo  first  clause  he  turns  to  Israel  and 
addresses  him  directly  ;  in  the  last  he  turns  away  from  him  again,  and,  as 
it  were,  expresses  his  surprise  and  i'ldignation  to  the  by-standers.  The 
sense  of  the  whole,  leaving  out  of  view  this  difference  of  form,  is  the  same 
as  in  the  foregoing  verse,  namely,  that  Israel  had  eyes  but  saw  not,  and 
instead  of  opening  the  ears  of  others  was  himself  incapable  of  hearing. 
The  sentence  may  be  said  to  exhibit  a  climax.  In  the  first  clause  the 
contrast  is  between  the  blindness  of  the  people  and  the  light  which  they 
enjoyed  ;  in  the  last  it  is  between  their  deafness  and  their  high  vocation  to 
open  the  ears  of  others.  Hence  the  abrupt  and  impassioned  form  of 
expression  in  the  latter  case.  The  marginal  reading  nxn  ,  though  suscep- 
tible of  explanation  as  an  infinitive,  is  an  unnecessary  emendation  of  the 
textual  tr^x-i .  The  infinitive  n'pn  miiiht  be  considered  as  derivinu-  a  preterite 
sense  fioni  the  preceding  verb  ;  but  a  better  oxj)Ianation  is  afforded  by  the 
analogy  of  v.  7,  where  the  same  infinitive  describes  the  end  for  which  the 
Servant  of  Jehovah  was  sent. 

V.  21.  Jehovah  (is)  icilling  for  his  righteousiiess'  sake  ;  he  will  mag- 
nify the  laxo  and  make  it  honourable.  The  people,  being  thus  unfaithful  to 
their  trust,  had  no  claim  to  be  treated  any  longer  as  an  object  of  Jehovah's 
favour;  and  yet  he  continues  propitious,  not  on  their  account,  but  out  of 
regard  to  his  own  engagements,  and  for  the  execution  of  his  righteous  pur- 
poses. For  these  reasons  he  will  still  put  honour  on  the  chosen  people  and 
the  system  under  which  they  lived.  Gesenius  and  Hiizig  arbitrarily  construe 
yzn  with  ^""^Ji^  ,  is  pleased  to  magnify,  of  which  construction  there  is  no 
example  elsewhere,  and  then  make  this  an  idiom  of  the  later  Hebrew. 
Still  less  grammatical  is  the  construction  of  the  ancient  versions,  '  it  pleased 
God  to  justify  or  sanctify  him,'  whether  this  be  understood  to  imply  the 
reading  ip'^2? ,  or  taken  as  a  paraphrase  of  the  common  text.  The  appli- 
cation of  the  words  to  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  inconsistent  with  the 
terms  of  censure  and  disapprobation  which  precede  and  follow. 

V.  22.  And  (ye/)  it  (is)  a  people  spoiled  and  robbed,  ensnared  in  holes 


68  CHAPTERXLII. 

all  of  them,  and  in  houses  of  confinement  they  are  hidden.  They  have 
■become  a  spoil,  and  there  is  none  delivering ;  a  prey,  and  there  is  none 
saying,  Restore.  Here  another  contrast  is  brought  into  view.  As  the 
conduct  of  the  people  did  not  answer  to  their  high  vocation,  so  their  treat- 
ment docs  not  answer  to  the  preceding  declaration  of  God's  purpose.  If  he 
still  designed  to  honour  them,  though  not  for  their  own  sake,  how  was  this 
to  be  reconcilcfl  with  what  they  suffered  at  the  hands  of  their  enemies  ? 
The  terms  are  no  doubt  metaphorical,  and  therefore  not  exclusively  descrip- 
tive of  literal  captivity.  At  the  same  time  it  may  be  admitted  that  the  suffer- 
ings of  Israel  in  exile  furnished  one  of  the  most  memorable  instances  of  what 
is  here  described  in  general. — C)"''i!in2  is  explained  in  the  ancient  versions,  and 
by  many  modern  writers,  to  mean  youths  or  chosen  men,  as  it  does  above  in 
ch.  40  :  30.  But  why  should  this  class  be  described  as  in  captivity  ?  Coc- 
ceius  and  Vitringa  change  the  meaning  of  the  clause  by  making  T}t'n  the 
infinitive  of  n^3  to  blow  or  puff ,  and  explaining  the  whole  phrase,  'they  are 
all  the  puffing  of  the  young  men,'  i.  e.  objects  of  derision  and  contempt. 
But  this  construction  violates  the  parallelism  for  the  sake  of  an  extremely 
forced  and  far-fetched  meaning.  JMost  of  the  modern  writers  follow  Luther 
in  explaining  Q'^'i'ina  to  mean  in  holes  oy  pitfalls,  corresponding  to  c^^s  ""Pis 
in  the  other  member. 

V.  23.  Who  among  you  will  give  ear  to  this,  will  hearken  and  hear 
for  the  time  to  come  1  By  this  we  are  not  to  understand  merely  the  fact 
recorded  in  the  foregoing  verse,  but  the  doctrine  of  the  wliole  preceding 
context  as  to  the  vocation  and  mission  of  Israel  and  as  to  his  actual  condition. 
God  had  appointed  him  to  be  a  source  or  at  least  a  medium  of  light  and 
blessing  to  the  nations  ;  but  instead  of  acting  up  to  this  high  character,  he 
not  only  left  tJie  nations  without  light,  but  was  wilfully  blinded  and  insen- 
sible himself.  Yet  God  would  still  be  true  to  his  engagements,  and  put 
honour  on  the  special  revelation  which  he  had  already  given.  Why,  then, 
it  might  be  asked,  was  Israel  suffered  to  fall  before  his  enemies  ?  The 
answer  to  this  question  is  introduced  by  an  indirect  caution  to  consider  it 
and  bear  it  in  mind.  The  interrogative  form  implies  the  possibility  of  their 
neglecting  or  refusing  to  obey  it. — The  last  phrase  is  explained  to  mean 
behind  or  backwards  by  Vitringa  (a  tergo)  and  Ewald  {zuruckw'drts^,  who 
seem  to  understand  it  as  denoting  reflection  on  the  past,  or  the  act  of  meditating 
upon  what  they  heard. — Most  other  writers  understand  it  as  relating  either 
to  the  time  of  hearing  (henceforth  or  hereafter)  or  the  subject  of  the  declara- 
tions to  be  heard  {concerning  the  future). 

V.  24.    Who  has  given  Jacob  for  a  prey,  and  Israel  to  spoilers  7     Has 
not  Jehovah,  against  whom  we  have  sinned,  and  they  ivere  not  tvilling  in 


CHAPTERXLII.  69 

MS  ways  to  walk,  and  did  not  hearken  to  his  Inio  1  This  was  what  they 
were  to  bear  in  mind,  viz.  that  what  they  suffered  was  ordained  of  God  and 
on  account  of  their  iniquities.  Tlie  errors  of  which  this  verse  is  the  negation 
are  those  of  supposing  that  they  suffered  without  fauU,  and  that  they  suffered, 
as  it  were,  in  spite  of  God's  protection,  or  because  he  was  unable  to  prevent 
it.  The  interrogation  makes  the  statement  more  emphatic  :  Who  else  can 
be  imagined  to  have  done  it,  or  for  what  other  cause  except  our  sins  ?  The 
change  of  person  in  the  last  clause  is  a  common  Hebrew  idiom  and  does  not 
seem  to  be  significant.  (See  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  -20.)  If  the  Prophet 
identifies  himself  with  the  people  in  the  first  phrase,  he  cannot  be  supposed 
to  exclude  himself  in  that  which  follows. — Hitzig's  translation  of  the  last 
word  (his  instruction)  is  too  weak,  as  it  fails  to  suggest  the  idea  of  obli- 
gation. It  is  also  at  variance  with  usage,  which  requires  nn-in  to  be  taken 
not  in  its  etymological  sense  merely  but  in  that  of  law. — This  verse  is  strictly 
applicable  to  the  sufferings  of  the  Jews  in  Babylon,  and  it  was  no  doubt  so 
applied  by  them  ;  but  in  itself  it  is  a  general  declaration  of  a  fact  which 
has  been  often  verified  and  was  especially  exemplified  in  ancient  Israel, 
viz.  that  the  sufferings  even  of  God's  people  are  the  consequence  of  sin. 

V.  25.  And  he  (Jehovah)  poured  upon  him  (^Israel)  fury  (^even)  his 
ivrath  and  the  strength  (or  violence)  of  war :  and  it  set  him  on  fire  round 
about,  and  he  knew  (it)  not ;  and  it  burned  him,  and  he  ivill  not  lay  it  to 
heart.  This  continues  and  concludes  the  description  of  God's  judgments 
and  of  Israel's  insensibility.  Most  writers  explain  ~-:n  as  an  absolute  form 
used  for  the  construct  {Jury  of  his  anger).  Junius  and  Vitringa  make  it  an 
adverbial  expression  qualifying  iSN  (excandescentid  or  cum  excandescentid 
iram).  The  simplest  construction  is  to  put  the  nouns  in  apposition,  either 
as  mere  equivalents  (my  anger  as  fury),  or  as  exegetical  the  one  of  the  other 
(fury,  to  wit,  my  anger). — He  knew  not  does  not  here  mean  unawares, 
without  his  knowledge,  but,  as  the  parallel  clause  shows,  implies  extreme 
insensibility.  The  tianslation  of  the  last  verb  as  a  preterite  is  ungram- 
matical,  and  the  assimilation  of  the  two  as  presents  an  evasion.  That  a 
preterite  precedes,  instead  of  sliowing  that  the  future  must  refer  to  past  time, 
shows  the  contrary,  by  leaving  us  unable  to  account  for  the  difference  of 
form  if  none  of  meaning  was  intended.  However  necessary  such  assimi- 
lations may  be  elsewhere,  they  are  inadmissible  in  cases  like  the  present, 
where  the  change  of  tense  admits  of  an  easy  explanation,  to  wit,  that  the 
writer  intended  to  describe  the  people  not  only  as  having  been  insensible 
before  but  as  likely  to  continue  so  in  time  to  come. — On  tlic  usao-e  of  the 
phrase  to  put  or  lay  upon  the  heart,  see  above,  p.  42. 


70  CHAPTERXLIII, 


CHAPTER    XI.  III. 

The  main  subject  of  this  chapter  is  the  true  relation  of  Israel  to 
Jehovah,  and  its  application  in  the  way  both  of  warning  and  encourage- 
ment. The  doctrine  taught  is  that  their  segregation  from  the  rest  of  men. 
as  a  peculiar  people,  was  an  act  of  sovereignty,  independent  of  all  merit  in 
themselves,  and  not  even  intended  for  their  benefit  exclusively,  but  for  the 
accomplishment  of  God's  gracious  purposes  respecting  men  in  general. 
The  inferences  drawn  from  this  fact  are,  that  Israel  would  certainly  escape 
the  dangers  which  environed  him  however  imminent,  and  on  the  other  hand 
that  he  must  suffer  for  his  unfaithfulness  to  God.  In  illustration  of  these 
truths,  the  Prophet  introduces  several  historical  allusions  and  specific  pro- 
phecies, the  most  striking  of  the  former  having  respect  to  the  exodus  from 
Egypt,  and  of  the  latter  to  the  fall  of  Babylon.  It  is  important  to  the  just 
interpretation  of  the  cliapter  that  these  parts  of  it  should  be  seen  in  their 
true  light  and  proportion,  as  incidental  illustrations,  not  as  the  main  subject 
of  the  prophecy,  which,  as  already  stated,  is  the  general  relation  between 
God  and  his  ancient  people,  and  his  mode  of  dealing  with  them,  not  at  one 
time  but  at  all  times. 

Israel  is  the  peculiar  people  of  Jehovah,  cherished  and  favoured  at  the 
expense  of  other  nations,  vs.  1-4.  But  these  are  one  day  to  become  par- 
takers of  the  same  advantages,  vs.  5-9.  The  proofs  of  the  divine  pro- 
tection are  afforded  by  the  history  of  Israel,  vs.  10-13.  One  of  the  most 
remarkable,  yet  future,  is  the  downfal  of  Babylon  and  the  liberation  of  the 
exiles,  vs.  14,  15.  An  analogous  example  in  more  ancient  times  was  the 
deliverance  from  Egypt,  vs.  16,  17.  But  both  these  instances  shall  be 
forgotten  in  comparison  with  the  great  change  which  awaits  the  church 
hereafter,  vs.  18-21.  Of  all  these  distinguishing  favours  none  was  owing 
to  the  merit  of  the  people,  but  all  to  the  sovereign  grace  of  God,  vs.  22-25. 
The  people  were  not  only  destitute  of  merit,  but  deserving  of  punishment, 
which  they  had  experienced  and  must  experience  again,  vs.  26-28. 

V.  1 .  And  now,  thus  saith  Jehovah,  thy  creator,  oh  Jacob,  and  thy 
former,  oh  Israel,  Fear  not,  for  I  have  redeemed  thee,  I  have  called  thee  by 
thy  name,  thou  art  mine  (literally,  to  me  art  thou).  The  juxtaposition  of 
this  promise  with  the  very  different  language  at  the  close  of  the  preceding 
chapter  has  led  to  various   false   assumptions  as  to  the  connexion  of  the 


CHAPTERXLIII.  71 

passages.  Some  give  and  now  the  sense  of  a/ef  or  nevertheless,  while  others 
understand  it  as  referring  to  a  period  following  that  just  mentioned  ;  as  if  he 
had  said,  After  these  things  have  heen  suffered,  fear  no  longer.  But  this 
interpretation  is  forbidden  by  the  reasons  here  suggested  for  not  fearing, 
viz.  that  Jehovah  was  already  their  Creator  and  Redeemer,  and  had  ah'eady 
called  them  and  made  them  his  peculiar  people.  It  will  also  be  observed 
that  in  ch.  xlii,  as  well  as  here,  there  is  the  same  alternation  and  apparent 
confusion  of  the  encouraging  and  minatory  tone,  which  cannot  therefore  be 
explained  by  referring  any  one  part  of  the  context  to  a  particular  period  of 
history.  Another  solution  of  the  difficulty  is  that  the  Prophet  has  in  view 
a  twofold  Israel,  the  false  and  true,  the  carnal  and  spiritual.  This  is  correct 
so  far  as  what  he  says  relates  to  internal  character  ;  but  it  is  evident  that 
he  has  reference  likewise  to  the  outward  fortunes  of  God's  people  as  an 
organized  body.  The  simplest  and  most  satisfactory  hypothesis  is  that,  in 
this  whole  context,  he  is  accounting  for  the  sufferings  of  Israel  and  his 
preservation  from  destruction  on  the  same  ground,  namely,  that  Jehovah 
had  chosen  them  and  therefore  would  preserve  them,  but  that  they  were 
unfaithful  and  must  therefore  suffer.  The  intermingling  of  the  promises  and 
threatenings  is  not  to  be  explained  by  supposing  a  reference  to  different 
periods  or  different  subjects  ;  nor  is  it  to  be  set  down  as  capricious  and 
unmeaning,  but  as  necessary  to  the  Prophet's  purpose.  Tlie  noiv  will  then 
have  a  logical  rather  than  a  temporal  meaning,  as  introductory  to  an  expla- 
nation of  the  strange  fact  that  the  bush  was  burned  but  not  consumed. — 
Create  and  form  have  reference  not  merely  to  the  natural  creation,  nor  to 
the  spiritual  renovation  of  individuals,  but  to  the  creation  or  constitution  of 
the  church.  God  was  the  maker  of  Israel  in  a  peculiar  sense.  He  existed 
as  a  nation  for  a  special  purpose. — Fear  not,  i.  e.  fear  not  that  thou  canst 
be  utterly  destroyed.  It  is  not  an  assurance  of  imnumity  from  sufiering, 
the  experience  of  which  is  implied  and  indeed  expressly  threatened  in  what 
follows. — I  have  redeemed  thee.  There  is  here  an  allusion  to  the  redemption 
of  the  first-born  under  the  Mosaic  law,  as  appears  from  the  metaphor  of 
substitution  used  in  vs.  3  and  4.  Thus  understood,  the  meaning  of  this 
clause  is,  thou  art  not  like  the  other  nations  of  the  earth,  for  I  have  pur- 
chased or  redeemed  thee  to  myself  as  a  peculiar  people. — To  call  by  name 
includes  the  ideas  of  specific  designation,  public  announcement,  and  solemn 
consecration  to  a  certain  work.  This  and  the  other  clauses  of  the  verse  can 
be  applied  to  the  election  and  vocation  of  individuals  only  by  accommo- 
dation, and  only  so  far  as  the  case  of  the  individual  members  is  included  in 
that  of  the  whole  body. — It  is  a  curious  idea  of  Menochius,  that  nrs-^b  is 
the  name  assigned,  as  if  he  had  said,  /  have  called  thee  by  thy  name 
Li-attah  (^Thou-art-mine).  The  true  sense  is,  thou  art  mine  because 
I    have    expressly   called    thee   so    to    be.  —  Rosenmuller    discovers    here 


rS  CHAPTERXLIII. 

another   obstetrical    allusion   in   the    phrase   ^"^S^ .      (See   the   Earlier  Pro- 
phecies, p.  451.) 

V,  2.  JVhcii  thou  passest  through  the  nmters,  I  will  he  iviih  thee  ;  and 
through  the  rivers,  they  shall  not  ovcrjlow  thee:  when  thou  ivalkest  through 
the  fire,  thou  shall  not  be  scorched,  and  the  jlame  shall  not  hum  thee.  Fire 
and  water  are  couiinon  figures  for  calamity  and  danger.  (See  Ps.  66  :  12.) 
To  explain  one  as  meaning  civil  and  the  other  religious  persecutions,  as 
Vitringa  does,  is  wholly  arbitrary,  and  might  be  reversed  with  just  as  much 
or  rather  just  as  little  reason. — Although  when  conveys  the  true  sense  here, 
and  is  given  in  the  lexicons  as  a  distinct  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  "3  ,  the 
latter  really  retains  its  proper  meaning,  yb?-,  because.  It  is  the  genius  of  the 
language  to  delight  in  short  independent  clauses,  where  we  use  more  involved 
and  complicated  periods.  '  For  thou  shalt  pass  through  the  waters,  I  will 
be  with  thee,'  is  the  idiomatic  Hebrew  mode  of  saying,  If  or  when  thou 
passest,  etc. — The  last  clause  might  be  rendered,  when  thou  walkest  in  the 
fire,  the  preposition  throiigh  being  used  even  in  the  first  clause  only  because 
the  English  idiom  requires  it  after  pass. — Hitzig  gives  n'sri  a  reflexive 
meaning  (6u?vi  thyselj),  which  is  unnecessary,  although  it  agrees  well  both 
with  Hebrew  usage  and  the  English  idiom.  Augusti  takes  the  same  verb 
'in  the  more  specific  sense  of  being  branded,  i.  e.  marked  by  the  fire.  (Com- 
pare the  derivative  noun  ""S  ch.  3  :  24.)  But  this  does  not  suit  the  more 
indefinite  expressions  in  the  parallel  clauses. — The  common  version  of  the 
last  words,  shall  not  kindle  upon  thee,  is  of  doubtful  authority,  and  seems  to 
introduce  a  needless  anticlimax,  as  burning  is  much  more  than  kindling. — 
The  application  of  this  promise  to  individual  believers  is  an  accommodation, 
but  one  justified  by  the  natural  relation  between  the  body  and  its  several 
members. 

V.  3.  For  I,  Jehovah,  thy  God,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  thy  Saviour, 
have  give7i  (^as)  thy  ransom  Kgypt,  Ethiopia,  and  Seba,  instead  of  thee. 
This  is  an  amplification  of  the  phrase  /  have  redeemed  thee  in  v.  1.  As 
the  Israelite  under  the  Mosaic  law  was  obliged  to  redeem  his  first-born  by 
the  payment  of  a  price,  or  by  the  substitution  of  some  other  object,  so 
Jehovah  secured  Israel  as  his  own  by  giving  up  the  other  nations,  here 
represented  by  a  single  group,  just  as  the  forest-trees  are  represented  in 
ch.  41  :  19  by  a  few  well-known  species.  The  group  here  selected  is 
composed  of  three  contiguous  and  cognate  nations.  Cush,  which  was 
placed  by  the  older  writers  either  wholly  or  partly  in  Arabia,  is  admitted 
by  the  moderns  to  be  coincident  with  the  Ethiopia  of  the  Greek  geographers. 
Seba  is  now  commonly  suj)posed,  on  the  authority  of  Josephus,  to  be  Meroe, 
a  part  of  Ethiopia  surrounded  by  the  branches  of  the  Nile,  and  celebrated 


CHAPTERXLIII.  73 

by  the  ancient  writers  for  its  wealth  and  commerce.  The  connexion  of  the 
countries  was  not  only  geographical  but  genealogical.  According  to  Gen. 
10  :  6,  7,  Cush  was  the  brother  of  Mizraini  and  the  lather  of  Seba.  Accord- 
ing to  this  exegetical  hypothesis,  the  same  essential  meaning  might  have 
been  conveyed  by  the  mention  of  any  other  group  of  nations.  At  the  same 
time  it  may  be  admitted  that  the  mention  of  Egypt  was  probably  suggested 
by  its  intimate  connexion  with  the  history  of  Israel,  and  by  its  actual  sacri- 
fice, in  some  sort,  to  the  safety  of  the  latter  at  the  period  of  the  exodus. 
Many  interpreters  go  further  and  suppose  that  the  words  would  have  been 
applicable  to  no  other  nations  than  those  specifically  mentioned,  and  that 
the  Prophet  here  alludes  to  the  real  or  anticipated  conquest  of  these  coun- 
tries by  Cyrus,  as  a  sort  of  compensation  for  the  loss  of  Israel.  But  the 
necessity  of  this  prosaic  explanation  is  precluded  by  the  prophetfc  usage  of 
specifying  individuals  as  representatives  of  classes,  while  the  sense  thus  put 
upon  ransom  or  atonement  is  extremely  forced  and  far-fetched.  That  the 
terms  although  specific  were  designed  to  have  a  wider  application  may  be 
safely  inferred  from  the  generic  expressions  substituted  for  them  in  the  next 
verse. — The  essential  idea  of  ^£3,  here  and  elsewhere,  is  that  of  vicarious 
compensation. — The  insertion  of  the  substantive  verb  in  the  first  clause,  so 
as  to  make  it  a  distinct  proposition  (/  am  Jehovah),  greatly  weakens  the 
whole  sentence.  The  description  of  the  speaker  in  the  first  clause  is 
intended  to  conciliate  regard  to  what  he  says  in  the  other.  It  was  in  the 
character,  not  only  of  an  absolute  and  sovereign  God,  but  in  that  of  Israel's 
God,  his  Holy  One,  his  Saviour,  that  Jehovah  had  thus  chosen  him  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  other  nations. 

V.  4.  Since  thou  ivast  precious  in  my  eyes,  thou  hast  been  honoured, 
and  I  have  loved  thee,  and  will  give  man  instead  of  thee  and  nations  instead 
of  thy  soul  (or  life).  There  is  precisely  the  same  anibiguity  in  since  as  in 
the  Hebrew  ""ij><";?  •  Both  expressions  may  be  taken  either  in  a  temporal  or 
causal  sense.  Because  thou  ivast  precious,  ov,  from  the  time  that  thou  wast 
precious.  The  former  sense  is  really  included  in  the  latter.  If  Israel  had 
been  honoured  ever  since  Jehovah  c.dled  him,  it  is  plainly  implied  that  this 
vocation  was  the  cause  of  his  distinction. — The  first  clause,  as  the  whole 
context  clearly  shows,  does  not  refer  to  intrinsic  qualities,  but  to  an  arbitrary 
sovereign  choice.  Since  I  began  to  treat  thee  as  a  thing  of  value,  thou  hast 
been  distinguished  among  the  nations.  The  verse,  so  far  from  ascribing  any 
merit  to  the  people,  refers  all  to  God.  Some  continue  the  construction  through 
the  whole  verse,  making  the  apodosis  begin  with  the  second  clause,  since  thou 
art  precious  in  my  sight,  and  art  honoured,  and  I  love  thee,  1  will  give  etc. 
This  yields  a  good  sense,  but  is  grammatically  inadmissible,  because  it 
supplies  a   conjunction  in   the  first  clause,  and   omits   one   in   the   second. 


74  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I  I  I . 

Either  of  these  assumptions  iiii^ht  be  justified  by  usage  and  analogy  ;  but  the 
coincidence  appears  unnatuial,  and  makes  the  wliole  construction  harsh. 
At  the  same  time,  this  construction  weakens  the  sentence  by  making  it  a 
mere  repetition  of  what  goes  before,  whereas  it  is  a  repetition  with  a  pointed 
affirmation  that  the  nation  owed  its  eminence  entirely  to  God. — The  future 
{I  xoill  give)  shows  that  the  substitution  mentioned  in  v.  3  did  not  relate 
merely  to  the  past,  but  to  the  future  also. — Man  is  here  used  collectively  or 
indefinitely  for  other  men  or  the  rest  of  men,  as  in  Judg.  16 :  7,  Ps.  73  :  5. 
Job  31  :  33.  Jer,  3'2  :  20.  Thy  soul,  life,  or  person,  seems  to  be  an 
allusion  to  the  usage  of  the  same  Hebrew  word  in  the  Law,  with  respect  to 
enunieration  or  redemption.  (See  Kx.  12:4.  Lev.  27  :  2.)  Tlie  general 
terms  of  this  clause  make  it  wholly  improbable  that  v.  3  has  specific  and 
exclusive  reference  to  the  nations  named  there. 

V.  5.  Fear  not,  for  I  (ani)  with  thee  ;  from  the  east  will  I  make  (or 
let)  thy  seed  come,  and  from  the  ivest  ivill  I  gather  thee.  The  reference 
of  this  verse  to  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon  is  not  only  arbi- 
trary and  without  foundation,  but  forbidden  by  the  mention  of  the  west  as 
well  as  the  east.  That  it  refers  to  any  restoration  is  the  more  improbable, 
because  the  Prophet  does  not  say  bring  back  but  simply  bring. — The  only 
interpretation  which  entirely  suits  the  text  and  context,  without  supplying 
or  assuming  any  thing  beyond  what  is  expressed,  is  that  which  makes  the 
verse  a  promise  to  the  church  that  she  should  be  completed,  that  all  her 
scattered  members  should  be  ultimately  brought  together.  (Compare  John 
1 1  :  52.  Rom.  3  :  29.  1  John  2 :  2.) — Thy  seed  has  reference  to  Israel  or 
Jacob  as  the  ideal  object  of  address. 

V.  6.  I  ivill  say  to  the  north,  Give,  and  to  the  south,  Withhold  not,  let 
my  sons  come  from  far,  and  my  daughters  from  the  end  of  the  earth.  This 
is  a  poetical  amplification  of  the  promise  in  the  foregoing  verse.  As  it  was 
there  declared  that  God  would  bring  and  gather  the  whole  seed  of  Israel,  so 
here  he  represents  himself  as  calling  on  the  north  and  the  south  to  execute 
his  purpose.  The  feminine  form  of  the  verbs  is  explained  by  the  rabbins 
on  the  ground  that  the  address  is  to  the  north  and  south  ivind,  as  in  Cant. 
4:16.  Gesenius  makes  the  words  themselves  of  common  gender.  Perhaps 
the  case  falls  under  the  same  general  principle  with  names  of  countries, 
provinces,  etc.  which  are  uniformly  feminine.  Hitzig's  suggestion  that  ■'i<"'2n 
does  not  here  mean  bring  hui  suffer  to  come,  \s  favoured  by  the  juxtaposition 
of  ivithhold  not. 

V.  7.  Every  one  called  by  my  name,  and  for  my  glory  I  have  created 
him  ;  I  have  formed  him,  yea  I  have  made  him.     The  construction  is  con- 


CHAPTERXLIII.  75 

tinued  from  the  foregoing  verse.  My  sons  and  my  daughters,  even  every  one 
called  by  my  name.  Augusti's  construction,  Every  one  of  them  is  colled  by 
my  name,  is  forbidden  by  the  article. — The  reflexive  sense,  thai  calls  himself, 
implying  profession  rather  than  divine  vocation,  is  wholly  unnecessary  and 
less  agreeable  to  general  usage. — And  I  have  created  him  is  a  common 
Hebrew  idiom  equivalent  to  ivhom  I  have  created. — The  distinctions  drawn 
by  some  between  created,  formed,  and  made,  are  more  ingenious  than  well- 
founded.  Thus  Viiringa  runs  a  parallel  between  the  creation  of  matter  out 
of  nothing,  its  configuration,  and  the  completion  of  its  parts;  the  regenera- 
tion of  the  soul,  its  conformation  to  God's  image,  and  its  ultimate  perfection. 
It  seems  to  be  rather  an  exhaustive  accumulation  of  synonymous  expres- 
sions.— For  my  glory  is  emphatic.  God  had  not  only  made  them  what 
they  were,  but  he  had  done  it  for  his  own  sake,  not  for  theirs.  So  like- 
wise he  now  speaks  of  their  being  called  by  his  name,  as  he  did  before  of 
his  calling  them  by  their  name,  the  latter  denoting  special  designation,  the 
former  special  authority  and  right. 

V.  8.  He  hath  hroughi  out  the  blind  people,  and.  there  are  eyes  (to 
them)  ;  and  the  deaf,  and  (there  are)  ears  to  them.  The  two  clauses  are 
so  constructed  as  to  supply  one  another's  ellipsis.  Most  writers  make  K"^sin 
imperative  (bring  forth)  after  the  example  of  the  Vulgate  (educ).  But  as 
this  form  in  thirty-five  places  is  the  praeter,  and  in  thirty  the  infinitive,  while 
the  imperative  without  an  augment  always  elsewhere  takes  the  form  N^in, 
such  an  assumption  is  in  the  highest  degree  unsafe  and  precarious.  Some 
more  correctly  make  it  the  infinitive  (to  bring  forth),  which  yields  a  good 
sense  and  is  justified  by  the  analogy  of  npa  in  42  :  20.  The  preterite  con- 
struction, however,  is  not  only  simpler  in  itself,  but  agrees  better  with  the 
1J^  which  follows,  and  which  is  usually  found  in  affirmative  propositions. 
The  first  verb  may  then  be  construed  either  with  Jehovah,  or  with  the  sub- 
ject of  the  preceding  sentence,  i.  e.  the  chosen  people  or  the  individuals 
composing  it,  whose  work  or  office  is  declared  to  be  that  of  turning  the  heathen 
from  darkness  to  light  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God.  (Acts  26  : 
18.)  A  Very  different  sense  is  put  upon  the  verse  by  those  interpreters 
who  take  ni3"'S  ai;;  as  descriptive  of  the  blind  people  (that  have  eyes),  and 
apply  it  to  the  Jews,  who  in  spite  of  their  advantages  were  blind  to  spiritual 
objects.  This  agrees  well  with  ch.  42:  19,  20,  as  explained  above.  But 
it  then  becomes  difficult  to  understand  in  what  sense  they  are  said  to  be 
brought  out.  On  this  hypothesis  the  best  explanation  is  that  they  are 
summoned  to  behold  the  demonstration  of  Jehovah's  prescience,  either  as 
adverse  parties  or  spectators.  This  would  require  the  imperative  construction 
of  K'^Sin ,  the  grammatical  objections  to  which  have  been  already  stated. 
On  the  whole,  the  most  satisfactory  interpretation  of  the  verse  is  that  which 


76  CHAPTERXLIII. 

understands  it  as  descriptive  of  the  change  wrought  or  to  be  wrought  in  the 
condition  of  mankind  by  Juhovah,  tln"ough  the  agency  of  his  people,  whether 
the  latter  be  expressly  mentioned  here  or  not.  He  (i.  e.  God,  or  Israel  as 
his  messenger)  hath  brought  out  a  people  (once)  blind,  and  (now)  they  have 
eyes,  and  (once)  deaf,  and  (now)  they  have  ears,  i.  e.  of  course,  seeing  eyes 
and  hearing  ears.  This  agrees  perfectly  with  all  that  goes  before  and 
follows  with  respect  to  the  mission  and  vocation  of  God's  people. 

V.  9.  All  the  nations  are  gathered  together,  and  the  peoples  are  to  be 
assembled.  Who  among  them  will  declare  this  and  let  us  hear  the  first 
things.  Let  them  give  (or  produce^  their  tvitnesses  and  be  justified ;  and 
(if  they  cannot  do  this)  let  them  hear  (my  witnesses),  and  say,  (It  is)  the 
truth.  The  translation  of  the  first  verb,  by  Rosenmiiller  and  others,  as  a 
future  or  imperative,  is  wholly  unauthorized  by  usage,  the  cases  cited  to 
establish  it  being  themselves  of  very  doubtful  import.  At  all  events,  it  is 
incomparably  safer  and  more  satisfactory  to  retain  the  proper  meaning  when 
it  yields  a  tolerable  sense,  than  to  pioceed  upon  the  strange  assumption, 
that  when  a  writer  deliberately  uses  two  distinct  forms,  he  intended  them  to 
be  received  as  one.  Here  the  sense  would  seem  to  be,  that  the  nations  have 
been  gathered,  but  that  the  process  is  not  yet  completed.  This  gathering 
of  the  nations  has  been  conmionly  explained  as  a  judicial  metaphor  like  that 
in  ch.  41:1.  In  that  case  the  verse  describes  the  heathen  as  assembled  at 
the  judgment-seat  to  plead  tlieir  cause  against  Jehovah.  This  agrees  well 
with  the  forensic  terms  employed  in  the  subsequent  context.  It  is  possible, 
however,  that  this  first  clause  may  have  been  intended  to  describe  not  the 
process  but  the  subject  of  adjudication.  The  gathering  of  the  nations  will 
then  denote  their  accession  to  the  church,  as  predicted  in  vs.  5-7  ;  and  this, 
in  the  next  clause,  will  refer  to  the  same  event.  Who  among  them  (i.  e. 
the  nations)  could  have  foretold  their  own  change  of  condition  ?  On  the 
other  supposition,  this  must  either  be  indefinite,  or  mean  the  restoration  of 
the  Jews  from  exile,  of  which,  as  we  have  seen,  there  is  no  specific  mention 
in  the  foregoing  context.  In  either  case,  the  usual  alternative  is  offered, 
viz.  that  df  pointing  out  some  previous  instance  of  foreknowledge  and  predic- 
tion.— The  last  clause  admits  of  two  constructions.  It  may  either  be  read, 
let  them  be  just  (or  candid)  and  hear  and  say  it  is  the  truth  ;  or,  let  them  be 
justified  (by  the  witnesses  whom  they  produce),  and  (if  not)  let  them  hear 
(my  witnesses)  and  say,  it  is  the  tiuth.  The  latter  seems  more  natural, 
because  the  other  connects  ^P'^it'^  not  with  its  own  part  of  the  clause  but  with 
what  follows,     r^x  is  here  equivalent  to  p"''ns  in  ch.  41  :  26. 

V.  10.  Ye  are  my  witnesses,  saith  Jehovah,  and  my  servant  whom  1 
have  chosen,  that  ye  may  know  and  believe  me,  and  may  understand  that  1 


CHAPTERXLIII.  77 

am  He  ;  before  me  was  not  formed  a  god,  and  after  me  there  shall  not  he. 
Some  regard  the  heathen  as  the  object  of  address  in  the  first  clause,  and 
understand  my  servant  as  denoting  Israel.  But  there  is  no  consistent  sense 
in  which  the  former  could  be  cited  as  witnesses  against  themselves;  and  this 
application  is  besides  forbidden  by  the  obvious  analogy  of  v.  12,  where  the 
same  words  are  explicitly  applied  to  Israel.  Of  those  who  correctly  under- 
stand them  so  in  this  case  likewise,  the  greater  number  refer  my  servant  to 
a  different  subject,  either  Isaiah,  or  the  Prophets  as  a  class,  or  the  Messiah. 
Ye  (the  Jews)  are  my  witnesses,  and  (so  is  this)  my  servant.  But  the  sim- 
plest and  most  natural  construction  of  the  sentence  is  to  niake  my  servant 
not  a  subject  but  a  predicate.  Ye  are  my  witnesses  and  (ye  are)  tny  servant 
whom  I  have  chosen  (for  this  very  purpose).  The  combination  of  the  plural 
witnesses  with  the  singular  servant,  although  sti'ange  in  itself,  is  in  perfect 
agreement  with  the  previous  representations  of  Israel,  both  as  a  person  and 
a  body  politic.  On  the  other  hypothesis,  the  relative  clause,  that  ye  may 
know  etc.,  depends  upon  witnesses,  and  the  words  whom  I  have  chosen  form 
a  pleonastic  adjunct  to  the  phrase  my  servant.  But  according  to  the  expla- 
nation just  proposed,  that  ye  may  Icnow  depends  upon  the  words  immediately 
preceding  whom  I  have  chosen,  and  the  clause  declares  the  purpose  not  only 
of  the  testimony  here  adduced,  but  of  the  election  and  vocation  of  his  servant. 
The  witness  to  whom  God  appeals  is  Israel,  his  servant,  constituted  such 
for  the  very  end  that  he  might  know  and  understand  and  believe  that  of 
which  all  other  nations  were  entirely  ignorant,  viz.  that  Jehovah  was  He, 
i.  e.  the  being  in  question,  the  only  wise  God,  the  only  infallible  foreteller  of 
futurity. — Various  attempts  have  been  made  to  explain  away  the  singular 
expression,  thei-e  ivas  no  god  formed  before  me,  as  a  solecism,  or  at  least  an 
inaccuracy  of  expression  ;  whereas  nothing  else  could  have  conveyed  the 
writer's  meaning  in  a  form  at  once  sarcastic,  argumentative,  and  graphic. 
Instead  of  saying,  in  a  bald  prosaic  form,  all  other  gods  are  the  work  of  men's 
hands,  but  I  am  uncreated  and  exist  from  all  eternity,  he  condenses  all  into 
the  pregnant  declaration,  there  was  no  god  manufactured  before  me,  i.  e. 
all  other  gods  were  made,  but  none  of  them  was  made  before  I  had  a  being. 
There  is  not  even  such  an  incongruity  of  form  as  some  suppose, — a  notion 
resting  on  the  false  assumption  that  before  me  must  in  this  connexion  mean 
before  I  was  formed,  whereas  it  only  means  before  I  existed,  just  as  the 
parallel  phrase  after  me  does  not  mean  after  I  am  formed,  but  after  I  shall 
cease  to  exist.  The  sarcasm  is  rendered  still  more  pungent  by  the  use  of  the 
divine  name  ^s  .  thus  bringing  into  the  most  revolting  contrast  the  pretended 
divinity  of  idols  and  their  impotence  ;  as  if  he  had  said,  none  of  these 
almighty  gods  were  made  before  I  had  a  being. — cns  is  properly  a  passive 
participle  used  as  a  noun,  like  the  Latin  dictum,  and  exclusively  applied  to 
divine  communications. 


78  CHAPTERXLIII. 

V.  11.  /,  /,  Jehovah,  and  besides  mc  (or  apart  from  mc)  (here  is  no 
Saviour.  In  the  first  clause  we  may  sirn|)]y  supply  am,  as  in  the  English 
and  most  other  versions,  or  arn  He  from  the  preceding  verse,  and  in  the 
sense  there  explained.  The  exclusive  honour  here  claimed  is  not  merely 
that  of  infalliijle  foreknowledge,  but  of  infinite  power.  Jehovah  was  able 
not  only  to  ft)reiell  the  salvation  of  his  people,  but  to  save  them.  These 
terms  are  not  to  be  restricted,  if  applied  at  all  directly,  to  the  final  salvation 
of  individual  believers.  There  is  evident  allusion  to  the  deliverance  of  Israel 
as  a  people  from  external  sufferings  or  dangers,  of  which  one  signal  instance 
is  refeired  to  in  v.  14  and  another  in  v.  16.  At  the  same  time,  the  doctrine 
here  propounded,  or  the  character  ascribed  to  God,  affords  a  sure  foundation 
for  the  personal  trust  of  all  who  have  really  a  place  among  his  people. 

V.  12.  I  have  told  and  have  saved  and  have  declared  (or  let  you  hear 
beforehand),  and  there  is  not  umong  you  {any)  stranger ;  and  ye  are  my 
witnesses,  saith  Jehovah,  and  I  (ant)  God.  Having  laid  claim  successively 
to  divine  prescience  and  power,  he  here  combines  the  two,  and  represents 
himself  both  as  the  foreteller  and  the  giver  of  salvation.  The  expression  of 
the  first  idea  twice,  before  and  after  the  expression  of  the  other,  does  not 
seem  to  have  any  special  meaning,  as  some  interpreters  imagine,  except  so 
far  as  it  gives  special  prominence  to  the  divine  omniscience  and  the  proof  of 
it  afforded  in  prediction,  as  the  evidence  of  deity  which  he  had  particularly 
urged  before,  and  which  he  is  about  to  urge  again. — The  emphatic  insertion 
of  the  pronoun  /  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  can  only  be  expressed  in 
English  by  a  circumlocution,  it  is  1  that  have  told  etc. —  Vitringa  and 
Rosenmiiller  omit  the  substantive  verb  in  the  last  member  of  the  first  clause 
as  superfluous,  and  construe  the  words  thus,  I  have  declared  and  no  strange 
(god)  among  you,  i.  e.  no  strange  god  declared  it.  But  in  that  case,  Hebrew 
usage  would  require  x^  instead  of  "rx  ,  which  is  not  an  adverb  of  negation, 
but  an  idiomatic  equivalent  to  the  negative  verb  of  existence,  and  can  only 
mean  there  is  not  or  there  was  not.  Most  of  the  modern  writers  refer  it  to 
past  time,  and  explain  the  clause  as  an  assertion  that  the  prophecies  in 
question  were  uttered  at  a  lime  when  idolatry  did  not  prevail  in  Israel.  It 
is  more  agreeable,  however,  both  to  usage  and  the  context,  to  translate  it  in 
the  present,  as  a  declaration  that  Jehovah  was  the  only  God  whom  they  had 
reason  to  acknowledge,  from  their  own  experience  and  observation. — "t  , 
which  is  a  conunon  term  for  stranger,  used  in  reference  to  men,  may  be 
here  considered  an  ellipsis  for  the  full  phrase  "ij  ^^? ,  which  is  not  uncommon 
elsewhere. 

V.  13.  Also  (or  even)  from  the  day  I  am  He,  and  there  is  no  one  free- 
ing from  my  hand ;  I  will  do,  and  who  will  undo  it  ?     The  assonance  in  the 


CHAPTERXLIII.  79 

last  clause  is  not  in  tlie  original,  which  literally  means,  I  uill  act  (ovmolcc), 
and  loJio  will  cause  it  to  return,  i.e.  reverse  or  nullify  it  ?  Tlie  inlerr(\!.^;ilive 
form  implies  negation.  A  simihir  expression  of  the  same  idea  is  lound  in 
ch.  14  :  27.  Wliat  is  said  specifically  in  the  first  clause  of  delivering  from 
Jehovah's  power,  is  extended  in  the  last  to  all  counteraction  or  reversal  of 
his  acts.  Tlie  ca  at  the  beginning  indicates  a  climax  not  only  now,  or  on 
any  occasion,  but  ui'^  .  This  last  is  understood  by  some  as  refming  to  a 
specific  terminus  a  quo,  such  as  the  oiigin  of  Isia(;l  as  a  nation,  the  exodus, 
etc.  Others  make  it  indefinite,  0/ oW  or /o//_g- .vi/jce.  But  the  best  inter- 
preters explain  it  as  meaning  since  the  first  day,  or  since  time  began.  The 
words  are  then  universal,  both  in  the  extent  of  power  claimed,  and  in  relation 
to  the  time  of  its  execution.  Over  every  object  and  in  every  age  the  power 
of  Jehovah  had  been  clearly  proved  to  be  supreme  and  absolute. 

V.  14.  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  your  Redeemer,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel: 
For  your  sake  I  have  sent  to  Babylon,  and  have  brought  down  (or  triode  to 
descend)  fugitives  all  of  i hem  ;  and  the  thaldeans,  in  the  ships  thdr  shout 
(or  song).  This  is  a  particular  instance  of  the  general  protection  vouch- 
safed by  Jehovah  to  his  people,  and  more  especially  of  that  providential 
substitution  or  redemption,  of  whici)  we  read  above  in  vs.  3,  4.  The 
inference  before  drawn  from  the  general  terms  of  v.  4,  that  the  nations 
mentioned  in  v.  3  are  only  representatives  or  samples,  is  confirmed  by  this 
explicit  mention  of  the  fall  of  Babylon  as  an  example  of  the  same  great 
truth. — The  titles  added  to  Jehovali's  name  are  not  mere  expletives  or 
words  of  course,  but  intimate  that  he  would  bring  this  great  event  to  pass 
in  his  distinctive  character  as  the  Redeenier  and  the  Holy  One  of  Israel. — 
Fiom  the  past  tense  of  the  verb  {I  have  sent)  some  infer  that  this  verse  was 
written  after  the  event,  while  otlieis  endeavour  to  avoid  this  conclusion  by 
translating  it  as  future  (7  ivill  send).  One  of  these  inferences  is  ju^t  as 
groundless  as  the  other.  The  event,  although  still  future  to  the  writer,  is 
described  as  past,  in  reference  not  only  to  the  purposes  of  God,  but  also  the 
perceptions  of  the  Prophet.  As  presented  to  his  view  by  the  prophetic 
inspiration,  the  destruction  of  Babylon  was  just  as  truly  a  l)istorical  event 
as  that  of  Pharaoh  and  his  host.  This  is  what  is  meant  by  the  prueteritum 
prophtticnm,  to  render  which  as  future  is  a  wanton  violation  of  tlie  form  of 
the  original  and  a  gratuitous  confounding  of  the  text  and  comment. — The 
Targuiii  strangely  understands  this  clause  as  referring  not  to  the  downfall  of 
the  Babylonians  but  to  the  deportation  of  the  Jews.  Behold,  on  account  of 
your  sins  T sent  (you)  to  Babylon.  But  this  agrees  neither  with  the  usa^-e 
oi  D2:v^h  nor  with  the  meaning  of  the  other  clause.  Interpreters  are  com- 
monly agreed  that  the  object  of  the  verb  is  Cyrus  or  the  Medes  and  Persians. 
— From  the  earliest  times  D"'n'i-i2  has  received  a  twofold  explanation,  viz. 


80  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I  I  I . 

that  o{  fugitives,  as  in  the  Septuagint,  and  that  of  bars,  as  in  the  Vulgate. 
The  same  question  arises  in  the  exposition  ol'ch.  15:  5.  (See  the  Earlier 
Prophecies,  p.  305.)  But  there  the  pointing  favours  the  last  sense,  whereas 
here  it  seems  to  recommend  the  other.  Of  those  who  prefer  the  meaning 
bars  even  here,  some  suppose  a  literal  allusion  to  the  gates  of  Bahylon, 
others  a  figurative  one  (o  its  protectors.  The  other  sense  of  fugitives  is 
applicahle  either  to  the  Babylonians  themselves,  or  to  the  foreigners  resident 
among  them.  (See  ch.  13  :  14,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  256.) 
BinitJS  is  the  proper  name  of  the  foicign  race  by  which  Babylonia  had  been 
occupied  before  Isaiah  wrote.  (See  ch.  23  :  13,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies, 
p.  411.)  It  is  an  interesting  fact,  that  recent  etymological  research  has 
identified  the  c^'nirs  of  the  Hebrew  ethnography,  not  only  vsith  the  Xaldaioi 
of  the  Greeks,  but  with  the  Kurds  of  modern  Asia.  Here,  however,  they 
are  mentioned  simply  as  the  inhabitants  of  Babylonia. — The  last  two  words 
are  variously  construed  and  explained.  Some  connect  them  only  with  what 
goes  before,  as  a  description  of  the  Chaldeans,  ivhose  cry  is  in  the  ships, 
implying  their  devotion  to  nautical  pursuits  ;  or,  whose  shout  (or  song)  was 
in  the  ships,  implying  their  habitual  use  of  ships  or  boats  for  pleasure.  The 
same  idea  is  otherwise  expressed  by  those  who  read  in  the  ships  of  their 
joyful  cry  (i.  e.  their  pleasure-ships).  On  this,  which  is  Gesenius's  inter- 
pretation, Hitzig  observes,  with  a  play  upon  words  which  cannot  be  retained 
in  a  translation,  that  the  pleasure-ships  are  air-ships  (die  Lustschiffe  sind 
Luftschiffe)  i.  e.  imaginary  or  fictitious.  The  same  thing  has  been  said  of 
the  naval  or  maritime  activity  of  Babylon  ;  but  Lowth  has  made  it  probable 
at  least,  that  it  really  existed  in  very  early  times. — Another  construction  of 
these  closing  words  connects  them  with  ^n"!"]!,-! ,  '  and  brouglit  down  the 
Chaldees  into  the  ships  of  their  triumph  or  delight.'  Hitzig  makes  nrjx 
the  plural  of  M*!i!<  (ch.  29  :  2),  and  understands  the  clause  to  mean  that 
God  had  brought  down  the  rejoicing  of  the  Chaldeans  into  lamentations. 
But  this  requires  a  different  pointing  of  n'.ijx  from  the  one  attested  by  the 
critical  tradition  of  the  Jews,  and  a  very  harsh  construction  of  diiii:^  . 
Hitzig's  construction  is  adopted  by  Ewald,  who  moreover  changes  n^a  nin-'-a 
into  Ci"j'i3  D-n"i'i5ia  (their  harp  or  music  into  groans),  on  the  authority  (as  he 
affirms)  of  Zeph.  1  :  14  and  Job  30:  31.  Either  of  the  old  interpretations, 
whether  that  which  makes  the  clause  descriptive  of  the  Chaldees  or  of  their 
destruction,  yields  a  better  sense,  without  the  arbitrary  violence  of  these 
pretended  emendations. 

V.  15.  /  Jehovah,  your  Holy  One,  the  Creator  of  Israel,  your  King. 
This  verse  may  possibly  have  been  intended  merely  to  identify  the  subject 
of  the  one  before  it.  /  sent  to  Babylon  etc.  even  I,  Jehovah,  your  Holy 
One  etc.     It  is  simpler,  however,  and  more  in  accordance  with  the  usage 


CHAPTERXLIII.  81 

of  the  language  to  make  this  a  disiinct  proposition  by  supplying  the  verb  of 
existence.  /  am  Jehovah,  or,  1  Jehovah  am  your  Holy  One  etc.,  or,  I 
Jehovah,  your  Holy  One,  am  the  Creator  of  Israel,  your  King,  Even  in 
this  case,  the  event  predicted  in  v.  14  is  referred  to,  as  the  proof  of  his  beino- 
what  he  here  asserts. 

V.  16.  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  the  (one)  giving  in  the  sea  a  tvay,  and  in 
mighty  waters  a  path.  As  the  participle  is  very  commonly  employed  in 
Hebrew  to  denote  continued  and  habitual  action,  this  verse  might  be  regard- 
ed as  a  general  description  of  God's  usual  control  of  the  elements  and 
conquest  of  all  difficulties.  But  the  terms  of  the  next  verse,  and  the  subse- 
quent contrast  between  old  and  new  deliverances,  have  led  most  interpreters 
to  understand  this  likewise  as  an  allusion  to  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea. — 
Some,  however,  follow  Aben  Ezra  in  a|jplying  the  words  to  the  passa"-e  of 
the  Euphrates  by  Cyrus,  a  gratuitous  departure  from  the  strict  and  custom- 
ary sense  of  5eo. — ="'■;?,  besides  its  etymological  meaning  strong  or  mighty, 
suggests  the  idea  of  impetuous,  violent,  and  fierce. 

V.  17.  TJlc  (one)  bringing  out  chariot  and  horse,  force  and  strong  ; 
together  they  shall  lie,  they  shall  not  rise  ;  they  are  extinct,  like  tow  (or 
like  a  loick)  they  are  quenched.  "fVJ  is  properly  an  adjective  and  may  be 
understood  as  qualifying  h-^n ,  a  force  and  (i.  e.  even)  a  strong  one.  Some 
however  regard  it  as  indefinite  or  abstract  (strong  for  strength)  and  an 
equivalent  or  parallel  to  "'"^n  .  Some  suppose;  a  new  sentence  to  beo-in  with 
this  verse,  and  make  N"^2i"i:3n  collective:  those  bringing  out  the  chariot  and 
the  horse,  shall  lie  together,  they  shall  not  rise  etc.  But  most  interpreters 
continue  the  construction  from  the  foregoing  verse,  and  make  the  first  word 
agree  directly  with  Jehovah.  Of  these,  liowever,  some  understand  the  verse 
as  having  reference  to  a  naval  victory  of  Cjrus  over  the  Chaldeans,  others 
as  relating  to  the  destruction  of  Pharaoh  and  his  host.  It  is  no  objection  to 
the  latter  that  'i~3'ii'^  is  future,  as  this  verb  denotes  not  merely  the  act  of 
lying  down,  but  the  state  of  lying  still,  and  is  therefore  a  poetical  equivalent 
and  parallel  to  shall  not  rise.  That  something  long  past  is  intended,  may 
be  gathered  from  the  exhortation  of  the  next  verse. 

V.  18.  Remember  not  former  things,  and  old,  things  consider  not.  As 
if  he  had  said,  why  should  I  refer  to  ancient  instances  of  God's  almio-hty 
intervention  in  behalf  of  his  people,  when  others  equally  remarkable  are 
yet  to  come  ?  Some  refer  this  to  the  advent  of  Christ,  but  most  to  the  fall 
of  Babylon  and  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  exile.  The  necessity  of  this 
specific  application  by  no  means  follows  from  the  express  mention  of  that 
event  in  v.  14  :  because,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  there  introduced  as  a  single 

6 


82  C  11  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I  I  I . 

illustration  or  example  of  a  general  tiutli,  \\hich  had  before  been  stated,  and 
which  may  possibly  be  here  repeated.  This  supposition  is  at  least  sufficient 
to  meet  all  the  requisitions  of  the  text  and  context. 

V.  19.  Behold  I  (aDi)  doing  {something)  neiv,  it  is  now  (or  yet)  to 
sprout  (or  germinate)  ;  do  you  not  know  it  1  Yes,  Iivill  place  in  the  wilder- 
ness a  way,  in  the  desert  streams.  The  now  does  not  necessarily  denote  a 
proxiniate  futurity,  but  only  that  the  thing  is  yet  to  happen,  or  in  other 
words,  that  it  is  something  new,  as  distinguished  from  all  former  instances. 
As  if  he  had  said,  it  is  still  future.  The  figure  of  germination  implies  that 
as  yet  there  was  no  appearance  of  the  final  issue.  (See  the  same  expression 
in  ch.  42  :  9.)  Do  you  not  knoio  it,  i.  e.  know  what  it  is  ?  Or,  icill  you 
not  know  it,  i.  e.  are  you  not  willing  to  be  convinced  ?  Or,  shall  you  not 
know  it,  i.  e.  is  not  the  event  to  be  attested  by  your  own  experience  ? — The 
^x  may  be  regarded  as  equivalent  to  yea,  yes,  or  as  indicating  something 
more  than  had  as  yet  been  experienced.  Not  content  with  having  made  a 
way  through  the  sea,  he  would  make  one  through  the  desert.  Now  as  this 
is  really  a  less  extraordinary  act  of  power  than  tlie  other,  it  would  seem  to 
favour  the  opinion,  that  v.  16  and  the  one  before  us  do  not  relate  indefinitely 
to  the  exhibition  of  Jehovah's  omnipotence,  but  specifically  to  the  exodus  from 
Egypt  and  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  exile.  Even  on  this  hypothesis, 
however,  the  terms  of  this  verse  must  be  understood  not  as  a  description  of 
the  literal  return,  but  as  a  figurative  representation  of  deliverance  and  relief, 
whereas  v.  16  describes  a  literal  deliverance.  On  the  whole,  therefore,  it  is 
best  to  take  both  verses  as  strong  metaphorical  descriptions  of  deliverance 
from  suffering  and  danger  by  a  direct  divine  interposition.  Even  supposing 
an  allusion  to  the  literal  journey  through  the  desert,  what  is  said  of  rivers 
must  be  figurative,  which  makes  it  probable  that  the  whole  sentence  is  of 
the  same  description.  Thus  understood,  the  Prophet's  language  means  that 
God  could  change  the  face  of  nature  and  control  the  angry  elements  in 
favour  of  his  people  ;  that  he  had  so  done  in  time  past,  and  would  again  do 
so  in  time  to  come. 

V.  20.  The  living  creature  of  the  field  shall  honour  me,  jackals  (or 
wolves)  and  ostriches ;  because  I  have  given  in  the  wilderness  waters,  and 
streams  in  the  desert,  to  give  drink  to  my  people,  my  chosen.  The  change 
is  further  described  by  representing  the  irrational  inmates  of  the  desert  as 
rejoicing  in  its  irrigation.  This  bold  conception  makes  it  still  more  evident 
that  what  precedes  does  not  relate  to  the  literal  journey  of  a  people  through 
a  literal  desert. — As  the  first  phrase  seems  to  be  a  general  one,  including 
the  two  species  afterwards  mentioned,  the  translation  beast  is  too  restricted, 
and  should  give  way  to  that  which  is  etymologically  most  exact,  viz.  ^wor. 


CHAPTERXLIII.  83 

animal,  or  living  creature.  The  form  is  singular,  the  sense  collective. 
The  two  species  represent  the  whole  class  of  animals  inhabitinn-  the  wilder- 
ness. (Compare  ch,  13:  21,  22.)  The  common  version  of  the  last  words 
of  this  verse  is  the  correct  one.  My  chosen  people  would  be  otherwise 
expressed.  To  the  simple  designation  of  my  people,  he  adds,  by  a  kind  of 
afterthought,  my  chosen  or  elect. 

V.  21.  The  people  (or  this  people)  I  have  formed  for  myself ;  my  praise 
shall  they  recount  (or  they  are  to  recount  my  praise.)  Another  declaration 
of  the  end  for  which  Israel  existed  as  a  nation.  This  brings  us  back  to  the 
main  proposition  of  the  chapter,  namely,  that  Jehovah  had  not  only  made 
them  what  they  were,  but  had  made  them  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  his 
own  glory,  so  that  any  claim  of  merit  upon  their  part,  and  any  apprehension 
of  entire  destruction,  must  be  equally  unfounded. 

V".  22.  And  not   me  hast   thou  called,  oh  Jacob  ;  for  thou  hast  been 
weary  of  me,  oh  Israel.     Interpreters,  almost  without  exception,  give  J^^^'^f^ 
here    the   sense  of  called  upon,  invoked,  or  worshipped.     There  is  much_. 
however,  to  be  said  in  favour  of  the  sense  attached  to  it  by  J.  H.  IVIichaelis, 
namely,  thou  hast  not  called  me,  I  have  called  thee ;  as  our  Saviour  says  to 
his  disciples,  ye  have  not  chosen  me,  but  I  have  chosen  you.   (John  15  :  16.) 
Having  thus  far  represented   the  vocation  of  Israel  as  a  sovereign  act  on 
God's  part,  he  now  presents  the  converse  of  the  same  proposition.     This 
construction  is  further  recommended  by  its  accounting  for  the  unusual  position 
of  the  words  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse,  without  resorting  to  the  arbitrary 
supposition  that  it  is  characteristic  of  a  later  age  than  that  of  Isaiah  :  q.  d.  it 
is  not  I  that  have  been  called  by  you. — According  to  the  usual  construction 
of  the  first  clause,  the  second  may  be  rendered  either  when  or  because  thou 
wast   weary  of  me.     The  common  version  of  the  ^3  as  meaning  but,  and 
Gesenius's  unnatural  construction  thou  hast  not  called  upon  me  so  as  to  be 
troubled  loith  me,  although  very  different,  are  equally  gratuitous. — It  is  not 
easy  to  determine  whether  labour  or  fatigue  is  the  primary  meaning  of  Si'. 
Sometimes  the  one  idea  is  more  prominent,  sometimes  the  other.     In  this 
case  both  would  naturally  bo  suggested,  as  in  the  following  paraphrase  :    It 
is  not  I  that  have  been  called  by  thee ;  for  so  far  from  manifesting  such  a 
preference,  thou  hast  been   wearied   and  disgusted  with  the  labour  which 
attends  my  service.     The  indirect  construction,  that  thou  shouldst  be  weary 
of  me,  is  only  admissible  in  case  of  extreme  exegetical  necessity. 

V.  23.  Thou  hast  not  brought  to  me  the  sheep  of  thy  burnt-offering. 
and  (with)  thy  sacrifices  thou  hast  not  honoured  me.  I  have  not  made  thee 
serve  with  oblation,  and  I  have  not  made  thee  labour  (or  wearied  thee)  with 


84  CHAPTERXLIII. 

incense.     The  whole  IMo-aic   ritual  is  here  represented  by  an  emimcralion 
of  some  of  the  prliici|Kil  olTcrin^rs  ;   ili(>  olah  or  general   expiation,  the  zcbn- 
him  or  animal   sacrifices  in   -general,  the  minhah  or  meal-offering,  and   the 
lebonah  ov  aromatic  fiuiiigation. — nb  includes  the  goat  as  well  as  the  sheep, 
and  is  therefore  correctly  rendered   in   the  English   Version  by  the  phrase 
small  cattle. — Of  the  whole  verse  there  are  several  distinct  interpretations  or 
rather  applications.     Some  place  the  emphasis  upon  the  pronouns.     Tt  is 
not  to  me  that  thou   hast  offered  all  this,  but  to  idols.     This,  though  a  pos- 
sible construction,  is  not  llu?  one  most  readily  suggested  by  the  words.     Nor 
is  it  easy,  upon  this  supposition,  to  account  for  the  total  want  of  any  distinct 
reference  to  idols  in  the  context.      Another  class  of  writers  understand  the 
passage  strictly  as  charging  the  Jews  with  culpable  neglect  of  the  ceremonial 
law.     But  of  this  they  were  not  generally  guilty  ;  and  the  restriction  of  the 
charge  to  the  reign  of  Ahaz  or  to  any  other  limited  period  is  gratuitous,  and 
hardly  consistent  with   the  general   expressions  of  the  context.     A  third 
hypothesis  applies  the  passage  to  the  unavoidable  suspension  of  the  cere- 
monial service  during  the  captivity  in  Babylon,  which  it  supposes  to  be  here 
urged  as  a  proof  that   the   deliverance  of  Israel   from    exile  was  an  act  of 
mercy,  not  of  righteous  retribution  for  their  national  obedience  and  fidelity. 
This  explanation,  although  much  more  plausible  than  either  of  the  others,  is 
open  to  the  same  charge  of  gratuitous  restriction,  without  any  thing  to  indi- 
cate it  in  the  text  or  context.      It  may  also  be  objected,  that  the  error  thus 
supposed  to  be  refuted  by  the  Prophet,  is  one  which  could  not  possibly  be 
entertained  ;  for  how  could  the  exiled  Jews  imagine  that  their  liberty  was 
bought  by  services  which  not  only  had  not  been  but  could  not  have  been 
rendered  ?     If  it  be  said   that  this   is  merely  a  specific   illustration  of  the 
general  truth   that  they  were   not  saved  by  any  merit  of  their  own,  it  still 
remains  incredible  that  this  truth  should  have  been  exemplified  by  reference 
not  to  a  real  case  but  to  one  wholly  imaginary  and  impossible.      How  much 
more  natural  and  satisfactory  to  give  the  words  the  general  and  unrestricted 
meaning  which  they  naturally  bear  as  a  description  of  the  people's  conduct, 
not  at  one  time  or  at  one  place,  but  throughout  their  history.     The  last 
clause  is  by  some  understood  to  mean,  that  the  system   imposed   upon   the 
people  was  not  burdensome.      But  this  is  consistent  neither  with  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  nor  with  the  statements  of  the  New  Testament  respecting 
them  (Acts  1.5  :  10.  Gal.  5  :  1),  nor  with  the  parallel  clause,  in  which  it  is 
simply  said  that  Israel  had  not  offered  what  was  due.     The  most  satisfactory 
interpretation  of  the  verse,  and  that  which  best  agrees  with  the  whole  con- 
text, is,  that   it  has  reference  not  merely  to  the  outward  or  material  act, 
but  to  its  moral  value  and   effect.     You  have  not  so  performed  your  cere- 
monial duties  as  to  lay  me  under  any  obligation  to  protect  you.     You  have 
not  really  given  me  your  cattle,  you  have  not  truly  honoured  me  with  sacri- 


CHAPTERXLIII.  85 

fices.  The  best  explanation  of  the  last  clause  is,  I  have  not  succeeded  in 
inducing  you  to  serve  me,  I  have  not  prevailed  upon  you  to  exert  your- 
selves, much  less  wearied  or  exhausted  you  in  ceremonial  services. 

V.  24.  Thou  hast  not  bought  for  me  sweeA  cane  with  money,  and  {loiih') 
the  fat  of  thy  sacrifices  thou  hast  not  drenched  me  ;  thou  hast  only  made 
me  serve  with  thy  sins,  and  made  me  toil  (or  wearied  me)  ivith  thine  iniqui- 
ties. According  to  Jarchi,  the  sweet  or  aromatic  cane  is  mentioned  as  a 
common  product  of  the  Holy  Land,  which  they  were  consequently  not 
obliged  to  purchase  in  order  to  the  preparation  of  the  holy  ointment.  (Ex. 
30  :  23.)  But  Kimchi  and  most  other  writers  proceed  upon  the  contrary 
assumption,  that  this  cane  was  an  exotic,  which  could  only  be  procured 
with  trouble  and  expense.  This  particular  is  mentioned,  like  the  others 
with  which  it  stands  connected,  as  a  specimen  or  sample  of  the  whole  con- 
geries of  ceremonial  services.  The  antithesis  between  the  clauses  seems  to 
show  that  the  idea  meant  to  be  conveyed  in  this  whole  context  is,  that  their 
external  services  were  nullified  by  sin.  So  far  from  being  satisfied  or  pleased 
with  what  they  offered,  God  was  only  vexed  with  their  transgressions  and 
neglects. 

V.  25.  /,  I  am  he  blotting  out  thy  transgressions  for  mine  own  sake, 
and  thy  sins  I  ivill  not  remember.  This  is  the  conclusion  to  which  all  that 
goes  before  was  meant  to  lead,  to  wit,  that  God's  goodness  to  his  people  is 
gratuitous.  If  they,  instead  of  choosing  God  and  his  service,  were  averse  to 
both, — if,  instead  of  pleasing  him  by  their  attentions,  they  had  grieved  him 
by  their  sins, — it  follows  of  course  that  he  could  still  show  them  favour  only 
by  gratuitously  blotting  out  their  sins  from  his  remembrance,  or  in  other 
words,  freely  forgiving  them. 

V.  26.  Remind  me  ;  let  us  plead  together  (or  judge  one  another)  ;  state 
{thy  case)  that  thou  may  est  be  justified.  After  asserting,  in  the  foregoing 
verse,  the  total  want  of  merit  in  the  people  and  their  dependence  upon 
God's  gratuitous  compassion,  he  now,  as  it  were,  allows  them  to  disprove 
his  allegation,  by  reminding  him  of  some  forgotten  merit  on  their  part. 
The  badness  of  their  case  could  not  have  been  more  strongly  or  sarcastically 
stated  than  in  this  ironical  invitation  to  plead  their  own  cause  and  establish 
their  own  rights  if  they  could,  with  a  tacit  condition,  not  expressed  but 
implied,  that  if  they  could  not  justify  themselves  in  this  way,  they  should 
submit  to  the  righteousness  of  God  and  consent  to  be  justified  by  grace. 

V.  27.  Thy  first  father  sinned,  and  thy  interpreters  rebelled  against  me. 
Gesenius  and  some  others  give  the  first  words  a  collective  sense,  as  signifying 


86  CIIAPTERXLIII. 

either  the  succession  of  priests  or  ancestors  in  general.  The  older  writers, 
for  the  most  part,  give  the  singular  its  strict  sense,  and  apply  it  cither  to 
Ahaz  or  Manasseh,  as  kintrs  and  therefore  bound  to  be  the  fathers  of  their 
people,  or  to  Abraham  as  the  progenitor  of  Israel,  or  to  Adam  as  the  father 
of  the  human  race.  Vitringa  even  makes  it  mean  Uriah,  the  unfaithful  high 
priest  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz.  This  and  the  first  interpretation  mentioned 
are  entirely  arbitrary.  That  which  understands  the  phrase  of  Abraham  is 
supposed  by  some  to  be  at  variance  with  the  uniform  mention  of  that 
patriarch  in  terms  of  commendation.  But  these  terms  are  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  the  proposition  that  he  was  a  sinner,  which  may  here  be  the 
exact  sense  of  n::h.  To  the  application  of  the  phrase  to  Adam  it  has  been 
objected,  that  he  was  not  peculiarly  the  father  of  the  Jews.  To  this  it  may 
be  answered,  that  if  the  guilt  of  the  national  progenitor  would  prove  the 
point  in  question,  much  more  would  it  be  established  by  the  fact  of  their 
belonging  to  a  guilty  race.  At  the  same  time  it  may  be  considered  as 
implied,  that  all  their  fathers  who  had  since  lived  shared  in  the  original 
depravity,  and  thus  the  same  sense  is  obtained  that  would  have  been 
expressed  by  the  collective  explanation  of  first  father,  while  the  latter  is 
still  taken  in  its  strict  and  full  sense  as  denoting  the  progenitor  of  all  man- 
kind.— Interpreters,  or  organs  of  communication,  is  a  title  given  elsewhere 
to  ambassadors  (2  Chr.  32  :  31)  and  to  an  interceding  angel  (Job  33  :  23). 
It  here  denotes  all  those  who,  under  the  theocracy,  acted  as  organs  of  com- 
munication between  God  and  the  people,  whether  prophets,  priests,  or  rulers. 
The  idea,  therefore,  is  the  same  so  often  expressed  elsewhere,  that  the 
people,  and  especially  their  leaders,  were  unfaithful  and  rebellious. 

V.  28.  And  I  will  profane  the  holy  chiefs,  and  will  give  up  Jacob  to 
the  curse  and  Israel  to  reproaches.  The  character  just  given  of  the  people 
in  all  ages  is  urged  not  only  as  a  proof  that  God's  compassion  must  be  per- 
fectly gratuitous,  but  also  as  a  reason  for  the  strokes  which  they  experienced. 
The  vav  before  the  first  verb  is  not  conversive  but  conjunctive,  so  that  the 
reference  is  entirely  to  the  future,  or  to  the  universal  present,  as  explained 
by  Kimchi,  who  observes  that  vav  has  pattah  because  it  does  not  express  past 
time  ;  but  the  sense  is,  that  in  all  ages  God  profanes  the  holy  chiefs.  This 
last  phrase  is  descriptive  of  the  same  persons  called  interpreters  in  v.  27, 
namely,  all  the  official  representatives  and  leaders  of  the  holy  (i.  e.  conse- 
crated and  peculiar)  people.  Its  specific  application  to  the  priests  in  1  Chr. 
24  :  5  no  more  proves  that  this  is  its  whole  meaning,  than  it  proves  that  Dinb 
always  means  religious  olTtcer?.  The  name  includes  the  priests,  no  doubt, 
but  it  includes  much  more. 


CHAPTERXLIV.  87 


CHAPTER    XLIV. 

This  chapter  opens,  like  the  fortieth  and  forty-third,  with  cheering 
promises  to  Israel,  followed  by  reasons  for  confiding  in  them,  drawn  from 
the  wisdom,  power,  and  goodness  of  Jehovah. 

The  specific  promise,  which  constitutes  the  theme  or  basis  of  the  pro- 
phecy, is  that  of  abundant  spiritual  influences  and  their  fruits,  not  only 
internal  prosperity,  but  large  accessions  from  without,  vs.  1-5. — The 
pledge  for  the  fulfihnent  of  this  promise  is  afforded  by  the  proofs  of  God's 
omniscience,  as  contrasted  with  all  other  gods.  vs.  6—9. — The  folly  of 
image-worship  is  then  established  by  two  arguments.  The  first  is  that 
idols  are  themselves  the  creatures  of  mere  men,  vs.  10-14.  The  other 
is  that  they  are  not  only  made,  and  made  by  man,  but  made  of  the  very 
same  materials  applied  to  the  most  trivial  domestic  uses,  vs.  15-20. — 
From  this  demonstration  of  the  power  of  Jehovah  to  perform  his  promise 
w^e  are  now  brought  back  to  the  promise  itself,  vs.  21—24.  This  is  again 
confirmed  by  an  appeal  to  God's  creative  power,  and  illustrated  by  the 
raising  up  of  Cyrus  as  a  deliverer  to  Israel,  vs.  25-28. 

Here  again  it  is  important  to  the  just  interpretation  of  the  passage  that 
we  keep  in  view  the  true  relation  which  the  main  theme  (the  safety  and 
prosperity  of  Israel)  bears  to  the  arguments  and  illustrations  drawn  from 
God's  foreknowledge  as  established  by  prediction,  from  the  impotence  of 
idols,  and  the  raising  up  of  Cyrus.  Through  all  these  varied  forms  of 
pi'omise  and  of  reasoning  there  runs  a  thread  uniting  them,  and  this  thread 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  church,  its  origin,  its  design,  and  its  relation  to  its  Head 
and  to  the  world  around  it. 

V.  1.  And  7101V  hear,  Jacob  my  servant,  and  Israel  I  have  chosen  him 
(i.  e.  whom  1  have  chosen).  The  transition  here  is  the  same  as  at  the 
opening  of  the  foregoing  chapter,  and  the  now,  as  there,  has  rather  a  logical 
than  a  temporal  meaning.  F'"or  reasons  which  have  been  already  given, 
there  is  no  need  of  supposing  that  a  dillerent  Israel  is  here  addressed  (Coc- 
ceius),  viz.  tlie  ])enitent  believing  Jews  in  exile  (Grotius)  ;  or  a  different 
period  referred  to,  namely,  that  succeeding  the  calamities  before  described ; 
nor  even  that  the  and  is  here  equivalent  to  notwithstanding,  as  explained  by 
Kimchi.  It  is  simply  a  resumption  and  continuation  of  the  Prophet's  argu- 
ment, intended  to  exhibit  the   true  relation   between   God   and   his   people. 


83  CHAPTER    XLIV. 

The  election  here  affirmed,  which  Calvin  understands  directly  of  a  personal 
election  from  eternity,  is  better  explained  by  J.  H.  JMichaelis  as  the  choice 
and  separation  of  the  church,  or  God's  peculiar  people,  from  the  rest  of  men. 

V.  2.  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  thij  maker  and  thy  former  from  the  womb 
ivill  help  thee  ;  fear  not,  my  servant  Jacob,  and  Jeshurun  whom  I  have 
chosen.  It  has  been  a  subject  of  dispute  among  interpreters,  whether  "V.?'? 
ought  to  be  connected  with  ?i"^^.^  (as  it  is  in  the  Septuagint  and  by  the 
rabbins),  or  with  ~Q]".1  (as  in  the  Targum  and  the  Vulgate).  The  masoretic 
accents  arc  in  favour  of  the  first  construction  ;  but  Gesenius  rejects  it  as  not 
yielding  a  good  sense,  and  reads,  who  helped  thee  from  the  womb.  But 
this  translation  of  the  future  as  a  praeter  is  entiiely  gratuitous,  and  therefore 
ungrammatical.  The  simplest  construction  is  to  make  the  words  of  Jehovah 
begin  with  thy  maker,  the  transition  from  the  third  to  the  first  person  being 
altogether  natural  and  one  of  perpetual  occurrence  in  Isaiah.  Thy  maker 
ivill  help  thee  is  equivalent  to  /,  ivho  am  thy  maker,  will  help  thee.  But 
even  on  the  common  su])position;  that  the  words  of  God  begin  with  the 
second  clause,  it  is  better  to  take  he  will  help  thee  as  a  short  independent 
clause,  parenthetically  thrown  in  to  complete  the  description  or  to  connect  it 
with  what  follows.  Thus  saith  thy  maker  and  thy  former  from  the  womb — 
he  tvill  help  thee — Fear  not  etc.  As  to  the  combination  maker  from  the 
womb,  it  can  seem  incongruous  only  to  a  hypercritical  grammarian  ;  so  that 
there  is  no  need  even  of  adopting  J.  H.  INIichaelis's  suggestion,  that  "^3^ 
means  ex  quo  in  utcro  esse  coepisti.  The  use  of  these  expressions  in  address- 
ing Israel  only  shows  that  the  conception  present  to  the  writer's  mind  is  that 
of  an  individual  man.  Although  the  specific  explanation  of  the  figures  here 
used  has  been  sometimes  pushed  too  far,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
maturing  of  Israel  as  a  nation  in  Egypt  is  often  represented  as  a  period  of 
gestation,  and  the  exodus  as  a  birth  ;  but  whether  there  is  any  such  allusion 
here,  may  be  considered  doubtful. — Jeshurun  occurs  only  here  and  in  Deut. 
32:15.33:5,26.  Some  of  the  old  attempts  to  ascertain  its  etymology 
were  ludicrous  enoufrh.  Thus  Vitrinira  quotes  Forster  as  derivin";  it  from 
^I'lJ  an  or,  and  Cocceius  from  ^n^^.iii;  they  shall  see,  i.  e.  the  people  who  should 
see  Christ  in  the  flesh,  quod  nemo  dixtrit  non  esse  hyperbolicum  et  remutum 
(Vitringa).  Grotius's  derivation  of  the  word  from  'X'j'-^'l  is  a  philological 
impossibility  ;  but  his  explanation  of  it  as  a  diminutive  or  term  of  endear- 
ment is  now  commonly  adopted,  but  with  reference  to  the  root  "I'ij;:  upright, 
as  an  epithet  of  Israel,  not  "in  consideration  of  their  entire  abandonment  of 
idolatry,"  as  Henderson  supposes,  but  in  reference  to  their  normal  or  ideal 
character,  the  end  for  which  they  were  created,  and  the  aspect  which  they 
ought  to  have  exhibited.  Hengstenberg  gives  the  same  sense  to  the  word 
as  a  proper  name,  but  not  as  a  diminutive  or  term  of  endearment,  which  he 


CHAPTERXLIV.  89 

rejects  as  unsustained  by  etymological  analogy  and  wholly  inappropriate  in 
the  places  where  it  is  originally  used.  (See  his  History  and  Prophecies  of 
Balaam,  pp.  98-101.)  The  word  is  rendered,  as  a  general  expression  of 
endearment,  by  the  Septuagint  (^i]yun)jiit'ro^),  and  with  closer  adherence  to 
the  etymology  by  the  other  Greek  versions  (ti'i>i't,',  thOvrarog).  The  diminu- 
tive form  is  imitated  in  Latin  by  Gesenius  (rectuJus,  justulus) ,  Sind  in  German 
by  Hitzig  and  Ewald  (Frbmrnchen) .  Rosenmiiller's  version  (^fortunate)  is 
supported  only  by  the  false  analogy  of  p'i:J  as  denoting  good  luck  or  pro- 
sperity. 

V.  3.  For  I  will  pour  waters  on  the  thirsty,  and  flowing  (waters)  on  the 
dry  (land)  ;  I  will  ponr  my  spirit  on  thy  seed,  and  my  blessing  on  thine 
offspring.  This  is  the  grand  reason  why  God's  people  should  not  despair. 
The  two  clauses  explain  each  other,  the  water  of  the  first  being  clearly 
identical  with  the  spirit  of  the  second.  This  is  a  common  figure  for  influ- 
ences from  above.  (See  ch.  32:  15.  Ez.  34  :  26.  Mai.  3:10.)  Knobel 
indeed  understands  the  two  clauses  strictly  and  distinctly,  taking  the  first  as 
a  promise  to  the  land,  and  the  second  as  a  promise  to  the  people.  But  n^2 
most  probably  refers  to  persons,  as  it  is  not  feminine  like  ^"^^1 .  Grotius 
understands  this  as  a  promise  to  send  prophets  to  the  Jews  in  exile,  such  as 
Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi !  Gesenius  also  seems 
to  think  the  promise  here  made  strictly  coincident  with  that  in  Joel  3:1,2. 
But  it  is  more  extensive,  and  includes  all  the  influences  of  the  Holy  S])irit. 
— The  offspring  of  the  people,  as  distinguished  from  itself,  is  supposed  by 
Knobel  to  denote  the  individuals  of  whom  the  aggregate  body  was  composed. 
Jarchi  and  Vitringa  apply  it  to  the  strangers  or  proselytes  who  were  to  be 
added  by  conversion  to  the  natural  Israel.  The  simplest  and  most  obvious 
interpretation  is,  that  the  ideal  object  of  address  is  Jacob  as  the  national 
progenitor,  and  that  the  Jews  themselves  are  here  described  as  his  descend- 
ants. Even  this,  however,  does  not  necessarily  exclude  the  spiritual  offspring 
of  the  patriarch,  who  are  explicitly  referred  to  in  the  context. 

V.  4.  And  they  shall  spring  up  in  the  midst  of  the  grass,  like  ivillows  on 
(or  by)  the  water-courses.  This  verse  describes  the  effect  of  the  irrigation  and 
effusion  promised  in  the  one  before  it.  There  is  no  need,  however,  of  making 
the  construction  a  subjunctive  one  {so  that  they  shall  spring  up),  as  Luther 
and  some  later  writers  do. — The  subject  of  the  verb  is  not  the  spirit  and 
blessing  of  Jehovah,  as  Aben  Ezra  strangely  imagines,  but  the  offspring  or 
descendants  of  Israel,  by  whom  the  blessing  was  to  be  experienced. — Lowth 
and  Ewald  read  T'sn  c^a  ???,  like  grass  amidst  the  water,  on  the  authority 
of  the  Septuagint  version  (cog  avn^itaov  tdazog  pc^Oi')?  which  seems,  however, 


90  C  H  A  P  T  E  Tx    X  L  I  V . 

to  be  simply  a  paraphrase  or  free  translation.  Gesenius  retains  the  compa- 
rative form  of  expression  (as  among),  but  without  a  change  of  text,  by 
making  the  particle  itself  coni])arative,  an  idiom  of  which  there  is  no  clear 
example  elsewhere.  All  these  expedients  arc  intended  to  remove  the  ima- 
ginary solecism  in  between.  But  the  true  explanation  has  been  long  since 
given  by  Vitringa,  namely,  that  "2  has  here  its  primitive  and  proper  use,  as 
a  noun  corresponding  to  the  English  midst.  So  fiir  is  the  common  text 
from  being  incorrect  or  irregular,  that  it  is  really  the  only  form  in  which 
the  idea  could  have  been  expressed,  since  "i"?  as  a  preposition  always  means 
between  or  among,  and  is  followed  by  a  plural  noun.  When,  on  the  con- 
trary, a  singular  noun  is  to  be  used,  as  here,  the  Hebrew  idiom  prefixes  not 
the  preposition  but  a  noun  meaning  7nidst  (r^  or  "jin)  with  a  particle  before 
it. — The  grass  and  the  willows  are  separated  only  by  the  rhythmical 
arrangement  of  the  sentence.  The  simple  meaning  of  the  whole  verse  is, 
that  they  shall  grow  as  willows  grow  among  the  grass,  i.  e.  in  a  moist  or 
marshy  spot.  The  question  who  are  meant  by  the  grass  as  distinguished 
from  the  willows,  is  absurd.  It  might  as  well  be  asked,  when  an  object  is 
compared  to  the  rose  of  Sharon,  what  is  meant  by  Sharon  as  distinguished 
from  the  rose.  Lowth  seems  to  look  upon  aqueducts  as  more  poetical  and 
better  English  than  the  common  version,  waier-courses. 

V.  5.  This  shall  say,  To  Jehovah  I  (belong)  ;  and  this  shall  call  on  (or 
by)  the  name  of  J acob  ;  and  this  .shall  inscribe  his  hand  (or  ivith  his  hand), 
To  Jehovah,  and  loith  the  name  of  Israel  shall  entitle.  The  repetition  of  the 
pronoun  this  implies,  according  to  Kimchi's  explanation,  persons  of  various 
classes  or  from  different  quarters.  It  is  commonly  agreed  that  this  verse 
predicts  the  accession  of  the  gentiles,  whom  it  represents  as  publicly  pro- 
fessing their  allegiance  to  Jehovah  and  attachment  to  his  people.  The  act 
of  calling  one  by  name,  and  that  of  calling  on  his  name  (invoking  him),  are 
intimately  blended  in  the  Hebrew  usage.  Most  interpreters  understand  it 
here  as  meaning  to  praise  or  celebrate.  Some  of  the  older  writers  follow 
Symmachus  in  giving  it  a  passive  sense  (this  shall  be  called),  either  reading 
^tli^l  for  ^"^p^. ,  or  supplying  the  reflexive  pronoun  after  it.  The  same  diver- 
sity exists  in  reference  to  the  last  verb  in  the  sentence,  nsa"] ,  which  some 
understand  to  mean  he  shall  surname  himself  (or  be  surnamed),  oihers  he 
shall  name  the  name  of  Jacob  in  a  flattering  or  respectful  manner. — Of  the 
intermediate  clause  there  are  two  ancient  explanations,  one  of  which  makes 
it  mean  he  shall  write  (with)  his  hand,  in  allusion  to  the  signing  of  contracts 
(Jer.  32:  10.  Neh.  9:38)  ;  the  other,  he  shall  write  upon  (inscribe)  his 
hand,  in  allusion  to  the  ancient  custom,  mentioned  by  Procopius,  of  marking 
soldiers,  slaves,  and  other  dependents,  with  the  name  of  their  superior,  to 


CHAPTER    XLIV.  91 

which  there  seems  to  he  a  reference  in  Ex.  13  :  9  and  Rev.  13 :  16.     This 
last  sense  is  supposed  to  he  expressed  in  the  Septuagint  version  (iniyQuxpEi 

V.  6.  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  Jchig  of  Israel,  and  his  redeemer,  Jehovah  of 
Hosts  :  I  (am)  first,  and  I  (atn)  last,  and  without  me  there  is  no  God.  This 
is  a  description  of  the  God  whom  the  nations,  in  the  preceding  verse,  are 
represented  as  acknowledging.  The  attributes  ascribed  to  him  afford,  at 
the  same  time,  a  sufficient  reason  for  confiding  in  his  promises.  In  like 
manner  Zeus,  the  supreme  god  of  the  Greeks,  is  described  by  Orpheus  as 
being  unpj  nuvrav  navzav  re  relsT/j,  and  in  another  place,  Ztv^'  ttqmtoi^  iytvEro 
Ztvg  vGTarog.  Henderson  points  out  the  appropriation  of  the  terms  here 
used  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  Rev.  1  :  18.  2:8.  22:  13. — There  is  no 
need  of  giving  to  ^I'jh'zri ,  in  this  and  the  parallel  places,  the  restricted  sense 
besides,  which  is  really  included  in  the  usual  and  strict  sense  of  without,  i.  e. 
without  my  knowledge  and  permission,  or  without  subjection  to  my  sovereign 
authority.  The  meaning  is  not  simply,  that  there  is  no  other  true  God  in 
existence,  but  that  even  the  Xeyofisvoi  deal  (1  Cor.  8:  5)  exist  only  by  his 
sufferance,  and  cannot  therefore  be  his  equals  or  competitors. 

V.  7.  And  ivho,  like  me,  will  call,  and  tell  it,  and  state  it  to  me,  since 
I  placed  the  ancient  people;  and  coming  things  and  things  which  are  to 
come  ivill  tell  to  them  (or  for  themselves^  1  There  is  no  reason  why  the 
interrogation  should  not  be  considered  as  extending  through  the  verse,  the 
rather  as  a  different  construction  splits  the  sentence  into  several,  and  arbi- 
trarily explains  some  of  the  futures  as  imperatives.  Still  more  objectionable 
is  the  construction  of  ^('^^■;  as  a  preterite,  which  is  given  by  all  the  later 
writers  except  Ewald.  The  question  tvho  has  called  like  me  is  in  no  respect 
more  pertinent  than  the  question,  who  will  (or  Crt«)  call  as  J  have  done,  which 
leaves  the  reference  to  past  time  equally  explicit,  without  doing  any  gramma- 
tical violence  to  the  form  of  expression.  The  usual  construction  of  the  next 
words  is,  let  him  tell  it  etc. ;  but  this  imperative  meaning  is  sufficiently  implied 
in  the  strict  translation  of  the  words  as  interrogative  futures,  \vho  will  tell  it 
etc.  N"!?^  is  to  call  aloud  or  publicly  announce.  It  differs  from  the  next 
verb,  if  at  all,  by  denoting  an  authoritative  call,  wm]  suggesting  the  idea  not 
only  of  prediction  but  of  creation. — T\Vi  is  correctly  explained  by  Gesenius 
as  a  forensic  term  meaning  to  state  a  case.  The  sense  of  comparing,  pre- 
ferred by  Ewald,  is  less  frequent  elsewhere  and  less  appropriate  here.  The 
words  since  I  placed  etc.  are  to  be  connected  with  "S'i'as,  who  can  call,  as  I 
have  done,  ever  since  I  placed  etc.  To  place  is  here  to  constitute,  create,  or 
give  existence.     Of  the  phrase  cbiJ'D^  there  are  three  interpretations.     The 


92  CHAPTERXLIV. 

first  is  that  of  the  rabbins,  who  explain  it  to  mean  ancient  yeople ;  this 
is  retained  in  the  English  and  some  other  versions.  The  second  makes 
it  mean  eternal  people,  but  refers  it  simply  to  the  divine  purpose  or  decree 
of  election.  The  third  gives  it  the  sense  of  everlasting  people,  i.  e.  a 
people  who  shall  last  for  ever.  In  all  these  senses  the  description  is 
appropriate  to  Israel,  not  simply  as  a  nation  but  a  church,  the  existence 
and  prerogatives  of  which  are  still  continued  in  the  body  of  Christ.  Eccle- 
sia  corpus  Christi  est,  quo  nihil  antiquixis  aut  majus  esse  potest  (Calvin). 
It  may  be  doubted,  however,  whether  any  thing  more  was  here  intended 
than  a  reference  to  the  origin  of  the  human  race.  (See  above,  on  ch. 
42 :  5,  6.) — According  to  Kimchi,  Grotius,  and  Vitringa,  the  last  clause 
contains  a  distinct  reference  both  to  a  proximate  and  remote  futurity. 
This  distinction  is  rejected  by  Gesenius,  without  any  other  reason  than  the 
groundless  one  that  synonymes  are  characteristic  of  this  writer,  i.  e.  the 
writer  of  these  later  prophecies,  as  distinguished  from  the  genuine  Isaiah. 
But  this  is,  to  some  extent,  characteristic  not  of  one  but  of  all  the  Hebrew 
writers,  and  abundant  illustration  might  be  drawn  from  the  earlier  and  even 
from  the  undisputed  passages.  The  truth,  however,  is  that  the  distinction 
made  by  Kimchi  is  so  natural  and  simple,  and  agrees  so  well  with  the  con- 
text and  analogy,  that  it  would  be  entitled  to  consideration,  even  if  the  two 
forms  of  expression  in  themselves  appeared  to  be  entirely  synonymous. 
Much  more,  when  such  a  difference  is  indicated  by  the  very  form.  Not 
only  are  two  different  verbs  used, — which  might  be  otherwise  explained,  and 
by  itself  can  have  no  weight, — but  one  is  in  the  participial  form,  the  clearest 
mode  in  Hebrew  of  expressing  present  action  or  a  proximate  futurity,  the 
other  in  the  future  proper.  Wherever  there  is  a  difterence  of  form,  there  is 
presumptively  a  difference  of  meaning  ;  and  if  any  such  difference  is  here 
intended,  it  can  only  be  the  difference  between  things  actually  coining  to 
pass  now,  and  those  which  are  to  come  to  pass  hereafter. 

V.  8.  Quake  not  and  fear  not ;  have  1  not  since  then  let  thee  hear  and 
told  (ihee),  and  are  ye  not  my  witnesses  ?  Is  there  a  God  without  me  1  And 
there  is  no  rock,  I  know  not  (any).  The  alternation  of  the  singular  and 
plural  form  in  reference  to  Israel,  is  peculiarly  appropriate  to  an  ideal  or 
colleciive  person,  and  in  strict  agreement  with  the  usage  of  the  Pentateuch, 
especially  with  that  of  Deuteronomy,  in  which  the  same  apparent  confusion 
of  numbers  is  not  a  mere  occasional  phenomenon,  but  one  of  perpetual  occur- 
rence.— The  verb  >in"iti ,  which  occurs  only  here,  is  derived  by  Hitzig  from 
nn'n ,  by  Gesenius  from  Pin- ,  and  explained  by  Ewald  as  an  error  of  the 
text  for  "xn^n .  It  is  more  probably  to  be  derived  from  the  synonymous 
and  cognate  n"}'; . — is'o  is  usually  taken  in  the  vague  sense  of  Zon^  ago  ;  but 


CHAPTERXLIV.  93 

it  may  here  be  strictly  understood  as  meaning  since  that  time,  which  Jarch 
refers  to  the  giving  of  the  law  on  Sinai,  Knobel  to  the  first  appearance  of 
Cyrus,  and  Maurer,  with  more  probability  than  either,  to  the  event  men- 
tioned in  the  preceding  verse,  viz.  the  constitution  of  the  c:;1:.-cr  . — And  ye 
are  my  ivittiesses  is  usually  construed  as  an  independent  clause  ;  but  a  possi- 
ble construction  is  to  include  it  in  the  question  as  above. — Vitringa's  expla- 
nation of  "I'^x  as  an  interrogative  particle  is  any  thing  but  justified  by  the 
analogy  of  1  Sam.  22:8,  to  which  he  appeals. — Here,  as  in  many  other 
cases,  God  is  called  a  Rock,  as  being  the  refuge  of  his  people,  and  the  firm 
foundation  of  their  hopes. 

V.  9.  The  imugc-carvers  all  of  them  are  vanity,  and  their  desired  (or 
beloved^  ones  are  worthless  ;  and  their  ivitncsscs  ihemselvcs  ivill  not  see  and 
uill  not  knoiv,  that  they  may  be  ashamed.  Having  fortified  his  promise  by 
a  solenm  affirmation  of  his  own  supremacy,  in  contrast  with  the  ignorance 
and  impotence  of  idols,  he  now  carries  out  this  contrast  in  detail. — The 
literal  meaning  of  the  first  phrase  is  the  formers  of  a  graven  image,  here  put 
for  idols  in  general. —  Vanity  is  here  to  be  taken  as  a  negative  expression  of 
the  strongest  kind,  denoting  the  absence  of  all  life,  intelligence,  and  power, 
and  corresponding  to  the  parallel  expression  they  cannot  profit,  i.  e.  they  are 
worthless.  The  desired  or  favourite  things  of  the  idolaters  are  the  idols 
themselves,  upon  which  they  lavished  time,  expense,  and  misplaced  confi- 
dence.— The  next  phrase  is  commonly  explained  to  mean  their  witnesses 
are  themselves,  i.  e.  they  are  their  own  witnesses,  which  may  either  represent 
the  idols  as  witnessing  against  their  worshippers,  or  the  worshippers  against 
the  idols,  or  either  of  these  classes  against  themselves.  Cocceius  connects 
these  words  with  the  following  verbs  {testes  illorum  ipsi  non  vident),  which 
construction  is  substantially  renewed  by  Evvald  and  approved  by  Umbreit. 
The  meaning  then  is,  that  the  idolaters  who  bear  witness  to  the  divinity  of 
their  idols  are  themselves  blind  and  ignorant. — The  puncta  extraordinaria 
over  f^5:l^  were  designed,  says  Henderson,  to  fix  the  attention  of  the  reader 
on  the  dumb  idols  being  constituted  witnesses  against  the  stupidity  of  their 
w^orshippers.  But  why  in  this  particular  case  ?  A  much  more  probable 
explanation  is  that  the  masoretic  critics  considered  the  word  doubtful,  per- 
haps because  it  appeared  pleonastic,  whereas  it  is  in  fact  emphatic. — There 
is  no  need  of  giving  Tcnow  the  vague  and  doubtful  sense  of  having  know- 
ledge;  the  meaning  rather  is,  they  will  not  see  or  know  it,  i.  e.  what  has 
just  been  said,  as  to  tiie  impotence  of  idols. — The  last  clause  is  explained 
by  Gesenius  as  meaning  that  they  are  given  up  to  blindness,  that  they  may 
be  ashamed  or  confounded.  Umbreit,  on  the  other  hand,  supposes  it  to 
mean  that  they  have  not  knowledge  or  sense  enough  to  be  ashamed, — an 
aggravation  of  the  previous  description. 


94  C  H  A  P  T  E  11    X  L  I  V . 

V.  10.  Who  formed  the  god  and  cast  the  image  to  no  use  (or  profit)  1 
Most  interpreters  regard  this  as  an  exclamation  of  contemptuous  surprise. 
implying  that  no  one  in  his  senses  would  do  so.  (Grotius :  qiiis  nisi 
demens  ?)  But  the  true  sense  is  the  one  proposed  by  Gesenius,  who  explains 
what  follows  as  the  answer  to  this  question.  Having  affirmed  the  worthless- 
ness  of  idols  in  general,  he  now  proceeds  to  prove  it  from  their  origin. — So 
far  from  being  makers  they  are  made  themselves,  and  who  made  them  ? 
This  is  the  precise  force  of  the  verse  before  us. — Here  as  elsewhere  there  is 
pungent  sarcasm  in  the  application  of  the  name  ^x  (mighty  God)  to  idols. 

V.  ]  1.  Lo  all  his  fellows  shall  be  ashamed,  and  the  worJcmcn  themselves 
are  of  men;  they  shall  assemble  all  of  them,  they  shall  stand,  they  shall 
tremble,  they  shall  he  ashamed  together.  Jarchi,  followed  by  Lowth,  Eich- 
horn,  Gesenius,  Maurer,  and  Ewald,  refers  the  suffix  in  i''';i^n  to  the  maker 
of  the  image,  and  understands  by  his  felloivs  his  fellow-workmen  or  fellow- 
worshippers.  But  why  should  the  workman's  fellows  be  ashamed  and  not 
himself?  A  much  more  natural  construction  is  the  one  given  m  the  Targum, 
and  approved  by  Vitringa,  Rosenm  Her,  Hitzig,  and  Knobel,  who  refer  the 
suffix  to  the  idol  itself,  and  by  his  fellows  understand  all  who  have  any 
thing  to  do  with  it,  either  as  manufacturers  or  worshippers.  (Compare 
Num.  25:3.  Deut.  11:22.  30:20.  Is.  56:3,  6.  Hos.  4:17.  1  Cor. 
10:  20.) — Lowth  affirms  that  the  conmion  text  of  the  next  clause  yields  no 
tolerable  sense,  and  is  unworthy  of  the  Prophet ;  for  which  reason  he  proposes 
to  read  dix^  as  a  passive  participle  meaning  reddened,  and  translates  accord- 
ingly, even  the  ivorhneii  themselves  shall  blush,  adding  that  if  any  one  should 
think  the  singular  irregular,  he  may  read  n-^anx^, — and  the  one  assumption  is 
undoubtedly  as  reasonable  as  the  other.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  not  only 
that  this  emendation  has  commended  itself  to  no  later  writer,  but  also  that 
the  common  text  is  universally  regarded  as  affording  a  perfectly  appropriate 
sense,  and  one  essential  to  the  Prophet's  argument,  viz.  that  the  makers  of 
the  idol  are  themselves  mere  men,  and  cannot  therefore  produce  any  thing 
divine.  Vitringa's  explanation  of  nnx  as  meaning  '  common  people  '  (plebs) 
is  destructive  of  the  argument,  as  well  as  contrary  to  usage.  The  com- 
parative sense  put  by  some  upon  the  phrase,  as  meaning  that  they  are  less 
than  men  (Cocceius),  or  that  they  shall  be  ashamed  more  than  other  men 
(Junius),  is  too  unnatural  to  need  refutation.  The  meaning  of  the  verse  is 
that  the  senseless  idol  and  its  human  makers  shall  be  witnesses  against  each 
other,  and  shall  all  be  involved  in  the  same  condemnation  and  confusion. 

V.  12.  He  has  carved  iron  (iviih)  a  graver,  and  has  wrought  (it)  in 
the  coals,  and  with  the  hammers  he  whl  shape  it,  and  then  work  it  with  his 
arm  of  strength.     Besides  (or  moreover),  he  is  hungry  and  has  no  strength. 


CHAPTERXLIV.  95 

he  has  not  drunk  water  and  is  faint.  The  construction  of  aJnn  as  a  verb, 
which  is  given  in  the  Targum,  is  much  the  simplest  and  most  obvious ; 
though  most  interpreters  regard  it  as  the  construct  form  of  the  derivative 
noun  ©"nn  a  loorhman  (as  in  Exodus  28  :  11),  with  bt-^s  added  to  restrict  its 
apphcation  to  a  worker  in  iron,  i.  e.  a  smith  ;  as  n"^::^  dnn  in  the  next  verse 
is  supposed  to  signify  a  ivorker  in  ivood,  i.  e.  a  carpenter.  (Compare  the 
phu'al  ^''^^■;.  ■'"^'^rj  2  Sam.  5  :  11.)  Those  who  agree  in  this  explanation  of 
the  first  two  words  differ  as  to  their  construction  with  what  follows.  Apart 
from  Lowth's  gratuitous  emendation  of  the  masoretic  pointing  by  proposing 
to  read  iiiS'ri  as  a  participle  of  i^:j  to  cut,  and  the  suggestion  of  Cappellus 
that  it  is  synonymous  with  ii^iit , — the  English  and  some  other  versions  take 
it  in  the  sense  of  tongs,  a  mere  conjecture  from  the  context ;  but  most  of  the 
modern  writers  make  it  mean  an  axe,  as  in  Jer.  10  :  3,  or  more  generically 
any  sharp  or  pointed  instrument.  The  noun  thus  explained  is  construed 
with  what  goes  before  in  three  different  ways.  The  older  writers  generally 
understand  it  as  a  noun  of  instrument.  Thus  the  English  Version  has  the 
smith  with  the  tongs  etc.  Vitringa,  Gesenius,  and  others  make  the  noun 
the  object  of  a  verb  to  be  supplied  (the  smith  makes  an  axe),  and  understand 
the  verse  as  describing  the  formation,  not  of  the  idol  itself,  but  of  the  tools 
to  be  employed  in  making  it.  Ewald  and  Knobel  explain  i^2>^  as  a  second 
term  used  to  qualify  ^"nn ,  or  in  other  words  as  qualifying  the  complex  phrase 
before  it.  To  the  whole  expression  Ewald  gives  the  sense  of  an  iron  and 
file  worker,  i.  e.  one  who  works  with  iron  and  the  file  ;  Knobel  that  of  a 
tool-smith  or  a  maker  of  edged  tools.  Both  make  this  complex  name  the 
subject  of  the  verb  1:?q  ,  and  the  i  before  it  an  idiomatic  pleonasm.  But  as 
both  these  grammatical  assumptions  are  without  satisfactory  authority  from 
usage,  they  are  only  admissible  in  case  of  exegetical  necessity.  Hitzig  like- 
wise makes  the  first  two  words  the  subject  of  the  verb,  but  takes  the  third  as 
its  object,  and  understands  the  clause  to  mean  that  the  smith  converts  an 
axe  into  an  idol,  as  in  ch.  2  :  4  the  sword  becomes  a  ploughshare  and  the 
spear  a  pruning-hook.  Knobel's  objection  that  the  idol  would  be  too  small 
is  of  no  great  moment,  if  it  can  be  assumed  that  images  were  ever  made  of 
iron  ;  but  in  that  case  the  most  satisfactory  construction  is  the  one  first  given, 
which  makes  the  verse  describe  the  proceedings  not  of  the  professional  smith, 
but  of  the  laborious  worshipper  himself.  The  common  version,  strength  of 
his  arms,  is  a  needless  and  enfeebling  transposition.  The  true  sense  of  the 
words  is  his  arm  of  strength.  Vitringa  directs  attention  to  the  beautiful 
parallel  in  Virgil  (Georg.  IV.  170-175),  and  especially  to  this  line:  illi 
inter  sese  magna  vi  hrachia  tollunt.  The  description  in  the  last  clause 
seems  intended  to  convey  these  several  ideas  :  that  the  man  who  undertakes 
to  make  a  god  is  himself  a  mortal,  subject  to  ordinary  human  infirmities ; 
that  his  god  is  utterly  unable  to  relieve  him  or  supply  his  wants  ;  and  that 


96  C  II  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I  V . 

neither  these  considerations  nor  the  toil  which  he  must  undergo  iu  order  to 
attain  his  end  are  sufficient  to  deter  him  from  his  self-tormentinw  efforts. 

V.  13.  He  has  carved  ivood,  he  has  stretched  a  line,  he  xoill  mark  it 
with  the  awl  (ov  graver),  he  unll  form  it  with  the  chisels,  and  with  the  com- 
pass (or  circle)  he  ivill  mark  it,  and  then  make  it  (or  noiv  he  has  made  it) 
like  the  structure  (i.  e.  after  the  model)  of  a  man,  like  the  beauty  of  man- 
kind, to  dwell  in  a  house.  In  this  translation  c-^n  is  taken  as  a  verb 
and  referred  to  the  same  subject  as  in  v.  1-2,  i.  e.  the  idol-manufacturer, 
who  goes  through  all  these  laborious  processes  himself,  in  order  to  produce 
a  god.  But  the  great  majority  of  writers  here  assume  a  transition  from  the 
maker  of  metallic  idols  to  the  nmker  of  wooden  ones,  or  from  the  smith  who 
makes  the  carpenter's  tools  to  the  carpenter  himself,  ^^'4'J  V'^'n  ,  the  worker 
in  wood. — In  this  verse,  as  in  that  before  it,  the  alternation  of  the  preterite 
and  future  introduces  us  into  the  very  midst  of  the  process,  and  describes  it 
as  already  begun  but  not  yet  finished.  This  distinctive  feature  of  the 
passage  is  destroyed  by  making  all  the  verbs  indiscriminately  present. 
The  conversive  future  at  the  opening  of  the  second  clause  may  either 
denote  simply  that  the  act  described  is  subsequent  to  that  just  mentioned, 
or  it  may  represent  what  was  just  now  future  as  already  done,  thereby  ren- 
dering the  view  of  a  progressive  operation  still  more  vivid.  The  two  mark- 
ings or  delineations  mentioned  are  commonly  supposed  to  have  respect  to 
the  general  dimensions  of  the  figure  and  then  to  its  precise  form  and  pro- 
portions. Henderson  arbitrarily  translates  the  same  verb  first  he  skctcheth 
its  figure,  and  then  he  marketh  it  off;  which,  even  if  it  gave  the  sense,  would 
not  convey  the  form  of  the  original. — According  to  the  rabbins,  ti^j  means 
a  '  red  or  other  coloured  string'  used  by  workmen  in  their  measurements 
(Montanus  :  filo  tincto).  It  is  applied  to  the  colouring  substance  by  Luther 
(Rolhelstein)  and  Lowih  (red  ochre  !).  Gesenius  and  the  other  modern 
writers  draw  from  the  Talmudical  and  Arabic  analogy  the  sense  of  a  sharp 
tool  or  ^raving  instrument. — n'lx  and  c-'X  seem  to  have  their  strict  sense 
here,  as  a  generic  and  specific  term,  the  beauty  of  man,  the  structure  of  a 
man.  The  Targum  seems  to  find  a  reference  to  both  sexes  ;  in  support  of 
which  some  of  the  old  Jewish  writers  refer  to  Num.  31  :  35,  where  n'lx  is 
applied  to  women  alone.  Jarchi  gains  the  same  end  in  a  different  way,  by 
saying  that  the  woman  is  the  glory  of  her  husband  (rir>3  ^■5^^p  f"r>C  "ottTi  f"r>). 

Jerome  and  Rooenmiiller  seem  to  understand  the  last  words  of  the  verse 

as  meaning  that  the  idol  has  to  stay  at  home  because  it  cannot  move. 
Gesenius  gives  r*^?  the  specific  sense  of  temple.  Gill  supposes  a  par- 
ticular reference  to  household  gods.  But  the  meaning  seems  to  be  that 
the  idol,  being  like  a  man  in  form,  is,  like  a  man,  to  dwell  in  a  house. 


CH  AP  T  E  R    X  LI  V.  97 

V.  14.  To  hew  him  doivn  cedars;  and  Qiou')  he  has  taken  a  cypress 
and  an  oak — and  has  strengthened  (i.  c.  raised  h)  for  hhnstlf  among  the 
trees  of  the  forest — he  has  planted  a  pine,  and  the  rain  shall  increase  (it, 
i.  e.  make  it  grow).  To  show  more  clearly  the  absurdity  of  ascribing 
deity  to  material  images,  he  here  goes  back,  not  only  to  their  human  origin 
and  their  base  material,  but  to  the  very  generation  of  the  trees  by  which  the 
wood  is  furnished.  The  particulars  are  stated  in  an  inverse  order.  He 
begins  with  the  foiling  of  the  trees,  but  interrupts  himself  in  order  to  go  still 
further  back  to  their  very  cultivation.  The  essential  idea  is  that  man, 
instead  of  being  the  creature,  is  in  some  sort  the  creator  of  the  wood  he 
worships,  since  it  does  or  may  owe  its  existence  to  his  agency.  The 
supposition  just  suggested  of  an  interruption  in  the  syntax  seems  more 
natural  than  that  of  a  grammatical  ellipsis.  Few  interpreters,  indeed, 
would  go  so  far  as  Clericus,  who  introduces  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence 
these  \\ords,  mitiit  ad  Libanum  homines,  and  adds,  with  characteristic  cool- 
ness, haec  fucrunt  necessario  supphnda  ;  although  in  the  very  next  sentence 
he  observes  of  the  Sepluagiiit  and  Vulgate  versions,  constructiones  guam  non 
intenicbant  de  suo  concinnarunt.  Ewald,  in  his  larger  Grammar  (p.  622) 
enumerates  this  among  the  examples  of  an  infinitive  denoting  necessity  or 
obligation,  just  as  we  might  say  ftmiliarly  In  English,  he  has  to  cut  etc. 
But  in  his  exposition  of  the  passage,  he  agrees  with  Gesenius  and  others  in 
making  it  equivalent  to  a  finite  verb,  witli  the  additional  suggestion  that  it 
may  be  an  orthographical  mistake  for  n"i:';i. — The  modern  writers  seem  to 
be  agreed  that  the  nnn  is  a  sj)ec!es  of  oak,  so  called  from  its  hardness,  like 
the  Latin  robur.  To  avoid  tautology  and  pedantry,  however,  the  common 
version  cypress  may  be  retained,  as  it  yields  an  appropriate  sense,  and  as 
botanical  precision  is  in  this  case  of  no  exegetical  importance,  since  the 
meaning  of  the  verse  would  be  the  same  whatever  species  had  been  men- 
tioned.— Most  writers  give  "j'^sn  the  sense  of  choosing,  designating,  here  and 
in  Ps.  80  :  16,  which  they  suppose  to  be  easily  deducible  from  that  of 
strengthening,  confining,  fixing.  Ewald  even  goes  so  far  as  to  take  n^3  in 
the  sense  of  choosing,  on  the  alleged  authority  of  Jer.  10:3.  This  is 
purely  arbitrary;  and  as  "^ax,  in  every  other  case  where  it  occurs,  admits  of  the 
translation  strengthened,  it  cannot  be  consistently  abandoned  here  without 
necessity  ;  and  this  necessity  cannot  exist,  because  the  strict  sense  of  makino- 
strong  is  not  only  relevant  in  this  connexion,  but  corresponds  exactly  to 
that  of  making  great  expressed  by  biis"^ ,  both  meaning  here  to  cause  to  "-row. 
Thus  understood,  the  word  helps  to  bring  out  with  more  strength  and  clear- 
ness the  main  idea  of  the  verse,  viz.  that  the  idolater  not  only  chooses 
suitable  trees,  but  plants  and  raises  them  for  the  purpose.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  suppose  that  this  is  a  description  of  a  usual  or  frequent  custom.  It  is 
rather  an  ideal  exhibition  of  the  idol-manufacture  carried  out  to  its  extreme 

7 


98  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I  V  . 

If  so,  the  active  subject  of  the  whole  description  is  the  self-deluded  devotee  ; 
which  furnishes  another  reason  for  believing  that  the  smith  and  the  carpen- 
ter are  not  distinctly  mentioned  in  the  two  preceding  verses.  It  also 
removes  the  seeming  incongruity  of  making  the  carpenter  raise  his  own 
timber,  whereas  the  same  thing,  when  alleged  of  the  idolater,  is  perfectly  in 
keeping  with  the  rest  of  the  description. — The  object  of  the  verb  ■j":?^'^  may 
be  either  the  trees  previously  mentioned,  orniore  indefinitely  trees  in  general. 
Lowih  arbitrarily  translates  this  clause,  and  layeth  in  good  store  of  the  trees 
of  the  forest.  Cieiicus,  still  more  boldly  and  extravagantly,  makes  it  mean 
that  he  furnishes  his  workshop  with  tlie  trees  of  the  forest.  Less  absurd, 
and  yet  untenable,  because  not  justified  by  usage,  is  Henderson's  translation, 
and  what  he  dccmeth  frm  among  the  trees  of  the  forest.  Umbreii's  sug- 
o-estion,  that  the  last  clause  was  designed  to  intimate  the  man's  dependence 
after  all  upon  the  rain  of  heaven  for  the  very  material  of  which  he  makes 
his  god,  is  not  entirely  natural.  The  clause  is  rather  added  to  complete  the 
picture  of  the  natural  origin  and  growth  of  that  which  the  idolater  adores  as 
superhuman  and  divine.  In  this  as  well  as  the  foregoing  verses  the  confusion 
of  the  tenses  in  most  versions  greatly  mars  the  force  and  beauty  of  the 
Prophet's  language. — What  is  gained  by  the  violent  and  ungrammatical 
construction,  he  has  planted  and  the  rain  has  nourished,  or  the  vague  and 
evasive  one,  he  plants  and  the  rain  nourishes  ;  when  the  exact  translation, 
he  has  planted  and  the  rain  ivill  nourish,  is  not  only  just  as  clear,  coherent, 
and  appropriate,  but  far  more  graphic  and  expressive,  as  it  hurries  us  at  once 
in  medias  res,  and  exhibits  the  work  described  as  partly  past  and  partly 
future  ?  At  the  same  time  it  implies  the  patient  perseverance  of  the  devotee, 
who  first  does  his  part  and  then  waits  for  natural  causes  to  do  theirs,  and 
all  for  the  production  of  an  idol  1 

V.  15.  And  it  shall  be  to  men  for  huming  (i.  e.  for  fuel),  and  he  has 
taken  of  them  and  warmed  himself;  yes,  he  nnll  Icindle  and  bake  bread ; 
yes,  he  will  form  a  god  and  fall  prostrate  ;  he  has  made  it  a  graven  image 
and  bowed  down  to  them.  The  future  meaning  of  the  first  verb  is  deter- 
mined by  its  intimate  connexion  with  the  last  word  of  the  foregoing  verse. 
(See  Nordheimer  <§>  219.)  cnsj  very  seldom  means  an  individual  man,  and 
seems  here  to  be  used  indefinitely  for  man  or  men  in  general.  The  singular 
verb  n;?"^  does  not  refer  to  this  noun,  but  to  the  worshipper  or  devotee  who 
is  still  the  subject  of  description.  The  plural  form  cin^  is  referred  by  Hitzig 
to  the  trees  of  the  forest  mention-ed  in  v.  14,  by  Knobel  to  the  a'^stJ)  orsticks 
of  wood  into  which  the  tree  must  be  divided.  The  same  explanation  may 
be  given  of  i^b,  although  Ewald  and  Hitzig  maintain  that  this  suffix  is 
employed  as  a  singular  by  later  writers  (e.  g.  ch.  53  :  8.  Ps.  11  :  7).  But 
even  admitting  the  existence  of  this  usage,  which  Gesenius  utterly  denies, 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I  V.  99 

the  strict  and  usual  meaning  is  to  be  retained  where  possible,  and  therefore 
here,  where  the  Prophet  seems  designedly  to  interchange  the  singular  and 
plural  forms,  in  order  to  identify  with  more  effect  the  idol  worshipped  and 
the  sticks  consumed.  He  takes  of  them  (the  sticks),  kindles  a  fire,  warms 
himself,  bakes  bread,  then  makes  a  god,  and  worships,  yes,  bows  down  before 
them  (the  sticks  of  wood).  The  argument  of  this  and  the  succeeding  verses 
is  intended  to  exhibit  the  absurdity  of  worshipping  the  same  material  that  is 
constantly  applied  to  the  most  trivial  domestic  uses.  All  the  interpreters 
since  Calvin  quote  the  striking  parallel  from  Horace  (Sat.  I.  8). 

Oliin  tnincus  eram  ficulnus,  inntiie  lignum; 
Q,uum  faber,  incertus  scamnum  faceretne  Priapum, 
Maluit  essii  Deuni. 

V.  16,  Half  of  it  he  hnih  burned  in  thefre,  on  half  of  if,  he  will  eat 
Jlesh,  he  tvill  roast  roast  and  be  filled ;  yea,  he  will  warm  himself  and  say, 
Aha,  lam  warm,  I  have  seen  fire.  Both  etymology  and  usage  give  isn  the  sense 
o(  half,  i.  e.  one  of  two  parts  into  which  a  given  whole  may  be  divided, 
whether  equal  or  unequal.  The  indefinite  translation  p«7-^,  given  in  all  the 
English  versions,  except  that  of  Noyes,  is  intended  to  avoid  the  incongruity 
of  making  two  halves  and  a  remainder.  But  this  incongruity,  although 
justly  chargeable  on  Umbreit's  version,  which  distinctly  mentions  the  one 
half  the  other  half  and  the  remainder^  has  no  existence  in  the  original  ; 
because,  as  all  the  other  modern  writers  are  agreed,  the  first  and  second 
i-^isnof  V.  16  are  one  and  the  same  half,  and  the  other  is  not  introduced 
until  the  next  verse.  Henderson  indeed  refers  the  second  to  the  wooden 
dish  or  platter  upon  which  the  meat  was  literally  eaten.  But  this  disturbs 
the  parallel  between  the  two  main  uses  of  the  wood,  as  fuel  and  a  god, 
which  is  so  distinctly  carried  out  in  the  preceding  and  the  following  context. 
It  is  better,  therefore,  to  explain  the  phrase,  on  half  of  it  he  eats  flesh,  as  a 
pregnant  or  concise  expression  of  the  idea,  that  over  or  by  means  of  the  fire 
made  with  half  of  it  he  cooks  flesh  for  his  eating.  The  obscurity  of  this 
clause  is  immediately  removed  by  the  addition  of  the  unambiguous  words, 
he  roasts  a  roast  and  satisfies  himself  The  force  ofvjx,  both  here  and  in 
the  foregoing  verse,  appears  to  be  equivalent  to  that  of  our  expression  nay 
more,  not  only  this  but  also,  or  moreover. — Gesenius  and  others  give  "'^'^x"i 
in  the  last  clause  the  generic  sense  of  perceiving  by  the  senses  ;  Hitzig  the 
more  specific  one  oi feeling,  in  support  of  which  he  quotes  the  observation 
of  SchcUing,  that  the  skin  is  the  eye  for  warmth,  whereupon  Hendewerk  no 
less  characteristically  says,  that  the  Prophet  may  with  more  probability  be 
supposed  to  have  ascribed  these  words  to  the  idolater  in  the  sense  of  an 
ancient  fire-worshipper  than  m  that  of  a  modern  pantheist.  The  truth  is, 
that  the  Hebrew  verb  not  only  may  but  must  have  here  its  proper  meaning 
J  havQ  seen ;  because  the  noun  which  follows  does  not  denote  the  heat  of 


100  CHAPTER    XLIV. 

fire  but  its  light,  and  there  could  not  be  a  more  natural  expression  of  the 
feeling  meant  to  be  conveyed  than  by  referring  to  the  cheerful  blaze  of  a 
large  wood  fire.  To  the  indiscriminate  translation  of  the  verbs,  both  in  this 
verse  and  the  next,  as  descriptive  presents,  the  same  objections  may  be  made 
as  in  the  foregoing  context. 

V.  17.  And  the  rest  of  h  (i.  e.  the  other  half)  he  has  made  into  a  god, 
into  his  graven  image  ;  he  will  bow  doicn  to  it,  and  will  ivorshij),  and  will 
pray  to  it,  and  say,  Deliver  me,  for  thou  {art)  my  god.  The  consecution 
of  the  tenses  is  the  same  as  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  has  the  same  effect 
of  fixing  the  point  of  observation  in  the  midst  of  the  process.  He  has 
kindled  his  fire,  and  will  use  it  to  prepare  his  food.  He  has  made  his  idol, 
and  will  fall  down  and  pray  to  it.  The  pronoun  at  the  end  may  be  regarded 
as  emphatic  and  as  meaning  thou  and  thou  alone. 

V.  IS.  They  have  not  known,  and  they  ivill  not  under  stand,  for  he  hath 
smeared  their  eyes  from  seeing,  their  hearts  from  doing  wisely.  The 
combination  of  the  preterite  and  future  makes  the  description  more  complete 
and  comprehensive.  Some  give  "3  the  sense  of  that,  and  make  it  indicate 
the  object  of  their  ignorance  and  inconsideration.  Junius  and  Tremellius, 
who  adopt  this  construction,  refer  r.-j  to  the  idol ;  they  do  not  know  that  it 
has  blinded  them.  The  Septuagint  explains  the  verb  as  a  passive  plural, 
and  Gesenius  has  the  same  form  in  his  version  {their  eyes  are  smeared), 
which  he  resolves  however  into  an  indefinite  construction  {one  has  smeared 
their  eyes).  But  ihe  analogy  of  ch.  6:  10.  29:  10.  Job  17:4,  confirms 
Aben  Ezra's  statement,  that  Jehovah  is  the  agent  or  subject  (otri  f>)T)  irirr>)- 
As  the  smearing  of  the  eyes  is  merely  a  figure  for  spiritual  blindness,  it  is 
here  extended  to  the  heavt,  of  which  it  is  not  literally  predicable. — On  the 
negative  or  privative  force  of  l^,  see  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  63. — As 
the  use  of  the  Hiphil  form  in  any  but  an  active  sense  is  called  in  question  by 
some  eminent  grammarians,  t"'3bn  may  here,  as  in  some  other  cases,  have 
the  sense  of  acting  wisely. 

V.  19.  And  he  will  not  bring  it  home  to  himself  {or  to  his  heart),  and 
{there  is)  not  knowledge,  and  {there  is)  not  understanding  to  say,  Half  of 
it  I  have  burned  in  the  fire,  and  have  also  baked,  bread  on  its  coals,  I  will 
roast  Jltsh  and  eat,  and  the  rest  of  it  I  will  make  to  {be)  an  abomination,  to 
a  log  of  wood  (or  the  trunk  of  a  tree)  I  will  cast  myself  down.  The 
essential  meaning  is,  that  they  have  not  sense  enough  to  describe  their 
conduct  to  themselves  in  its  true  colours;  if  they  did,  they  would  stand 
amazed  at  its  impiety  and  folly.  In  the  form  of  expression  the  writer  passes 
from  the  plural  to  the  singular,  i.  e.  from  idolaters  in  general  to  the  individual 


CH  A  PTE  R    XL  I  V.  101 

idolater. — The  first  phrase  does  not  correspond  exactly  to  the  English  lay 
to  heart,  but  comprehends  reflection  and  emotion.  The  construction  of  the 
last  clause  as  an  explanation  or  an  interrogation  has  arisen  from  a  wish  to 
avoid  the  incongruity  of  making  the  man  call  himself  a  fool,  or  express  his 
resolution  to  perform  a  foolish  act.  But  this  very  incongruity  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  die  writer's  purpose,  which  is  simply  to  tell  what  the  infatuated 
devotee  would  say  of  his  own  conduct  if  he  saw  it  in  its  true  light.  Instead 
of  saying,  I  will  worship  my  god,  he  would  then  say,  I  will  worship  a  stick 
of  wood,  a  part  of  the  very  log  which  I  have  just  burned,  upon  which  I  have 
just  baked  my  bread,  and  on  which  I  am  just  about  to  cook  my  dinner.  The 
more  revolting  and  absurd  this  language,  the  more  completely  does  it  suit  and 
carry  out  the  writer's  purpose.  Hence  too  the  use  of  the  term  abomination, 
i.  e.  object  of  abhorrence,  not  in  the  worshipper's  actual  belief,  but  as  it 
would  be  if  his  eyes  were  opened. 

V.  20.  Feeding  on  ashes,  (A/s)  heart  is  deceived,  it  has  Jed  him  astray, 
and  he  cannot  deliver  himself  (ov  his  soul),  end  he  will  not  say,  Is  there  not 
a  lie  in  my  right  hand  ?  Another  statement  of  the  reason  why  he  cannot 
see  his  conduct  in  its  just  light  or  describe  it  in  correct  terms,  viz.  because 
his  very  mind  or  heart  is  deceived,  and  this  because  it  feeds  on  ashes.  This 
last  expression  is  strangely  understood  by  some  interpreters,  followin"-  the 
Targum,  to  describe  the  idol  as  a  piece  of  half-burnt  wood  ;  and  even  Um- 
breit  seems  to  recognise  such  an  allusion  in  the  sentence.  But  the  great 
majority  of  writers,  far  more  naturally,  make  it  a  figure  for  the  love  and 
prosecution  of  unsatisfying  objects,  analogous  lo  feeding  on  wind,  Hos.  12  :  2. 
Gesenius,  in  his  Commentary,  says  that  the  translation  feedeth  on  ashes  is 
in  no  case  appropriate  (in  keinem  Falle  passend).  He  accordingly  trans- 
lates it  there  sectatur  cinerem  ;  but  in  his  Thesaurus  he  abandons  this 
gratuitous  multiplication  of  senses,  and  explains  it  as  a  figurative  application 
of  the  common  meaning,  "  pasci  aliqua  re,  metaph.  i.  q.  delectari  re."  The 
word,  however,  denotes  something  more  than  simply  to  take  pleasure  in  an 
object,  and  suggests  the  idea  of  choosing  it  and  resting  in  it  as  a  portion. — 
The  usual  construction  of  the  next  words,  a  deceived  heart  has  seduced  him, 
is  conmionly  explained  by  assuming  an  ellipsis  of  the  relative,  (his)  heart 
(ivhich)  is  deceived  has  seduced  him.  But  the  simplest  and  most  natural 
construction  is  the  one  proposed  by  Knobel,  who  makes  two  short  indepen- 
dent clauses,  the  heart  is  deceived,  it  lends  him  astray.  The  futures  of  the 
last  clause  have,  in  part  if  not  exclusively,  a  potential  meaning.  It  is  best 
perhaps  to  combine  the  ideas  of  unwillingness  and  inabihty. — The  concluding 
question  is  equivalent  in  import  to  the  long  speech  put  into  the  mouth  of  the 
idolater  in  v.  19.  By  a  lie  we  are  to  understand  that  which  professes  to  be 
what  it  is  not,  and  thereby  deceives  the  hopes  of  those  who  trust  in  it.     (See 


102  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    XL  I  V. 

Jer.  10  :  14.  Ps.  33  :  17.)  This  description  some  apply  to  the  idol  itself,  as  if 
he  had  said,  Is  not  this,  which  I  carry  in  my  right  hand,  a  deception  ?  But 
as  this  makes  a  part  of  the  interrogation  literal  and  a  part  metaphorical,  most 
writers  give  it  uniformity  by  understanding  all  the  terms  as  figurative  :  Is 
not  this,  about  which  I  am  busied,  and  upon  which  I  am  spending  strength 
and  labour,  a  deception  ?  To  any  one  rational  enough  to  ask  the  question, 
the  reply  would  be  affirmative  of  course. 

V.  21.  Jlemcmher  these  (things),  Jacob  and  Israel,  for  thou  art  my 
servant  ;  I  have  formed  thee,  a  servant  unto  me  art  thou  ;  Israel,  thou 
shalt  not  he  forgotten  by  me.  Having  completed  his  detailed  exposure  of 
the  folly  of  idolatry,  or  rather  of  the  impotence  of  idols,  as  contrasted  with 
the  power  of  God,  he  now  resumes  the  tone  of  promise  and  encouragement 
with  which  the  chapter  opens,  and  assures  the  chosen  people,  here  personi- 
fied as  Israel  or  Jacob,  that  having  been  constituted  such  by  Jehovah  for  a 
special  purpose,  they  could  not  cease  to  be  the  objects  of  his  watchful  care. 
— These  things  may  possibly  refer  to  the  immediately  succeeding  state- 
ments, which  may  then  be  rendered  that  thou  art  my  servant  etc.  To  most 
interpreters,  however,  it  has  seemed  more  natural  to  understand  by  these 
things  the  whole  foregoing  series  of  arguments  against  the  divinity  of  idols 
and  in  favour  of  Jeliovah's  sole  supremacy. — Ewald  connects  "'V"?^.  wit'i 
the  preceding  verb,  so  as  to  mean,  I  have  formed  thee  as  a  servant  for 
myself.  The  only  difficulty  in  the  way  of  this  construction  is  the  ^rix , 
which  cannot  be  the  object  of  the  verb,  but  must  agree  with  one  expressed 
or  understood.  This  objection  might  be  done  away  by  disregarding  the 
masoretic  interpunction,  and  transferring  the  disjunctive  accent  to  the  pre- 
ceding word  ;  in  which  case  the  latter  member  of  the  clause  would  read,  thou 
Israel  etc.,  with  an  emphasis  upon  the  pronoun.  This  construction  has  the 
advantage  of  removing  the  apparent  tautology  arising  from  the  repetition  of 
thou  art  my  servant,  which  is  more  observable  in  most  translations  than  in 
the  original,  where  two  different  forms  of  expression  are  employed. — The 
last  word  in  the  verse  is  explained  in  the  ancient  versions,  and  by  some 
modern  writers,  as  a  deponent  verb,  thou  shalt  not  forget  me.  But  Gesenius 
and  Ewald,  with  greater  probability,  make  it  a  proper  passive,  and  explain 
the  suffix  as  equivalent  to  a  dative  or  an  ablative  in  Latin,  thou  shalt  not  be 
forgotten  (by)  me ;  which  is  much  more  appropriate,  in  this  connexion,  than 
an  exhortation  not  to  forget  God.  This  construction  is  as  old  as  Aben 
Ezra,  who  paraphrases  the  expression  thus  :  -pDtf>  ':f>i  'i-^Di  'iri'  t)t:p  ^i* 

V.  22.  /  have  blotted  out,  like  a  cloud,  thy  transgressions,  and,  like  a 
vapour,  thy  sins  ;  return  to  me,  for  I  have  redeemed  thee.  As  the  previous 
assurances  were  suited  to  dispel  any  doubt  or  hesitation  as  to  the  power  of 


CHAPTERXLIV.  103 

Jehovah,  so  the  one  in  this  verse  meets  anotlier  difficuUy,  namely,  that 
arising  from  a  sense  of  guilt.  The  assurance  given  is  that  of  entire  and 
gratuitous  forgiveness.  The  analogy  of  Exodus  32 :  32,  33,  would  seem  to 
favour  an  allusion  to  the  blotting  out  of  an  inscription  or  an  entiy  in  a  book 
of  accounts.  The  cloud  may  then  be  a  distinct  figure  to  denote  what  is 
transient  or  evanescent.  (See  Hos.  6  :  4.  13  :  3.  Job  7  :  9.  30  :  15.)  This 
is  Hitzig's  explanation  of  the  verse  ;  but  most  interpreters  suppose  the  blot- 
ting and  the  cloud  to  be  parts  of  one  and  the  same  metaphor,  although  they 
differ  in  their  method  of  connecting  them.  Junius  strangely  understands  the 
clause  to  mean,  as  a  cloud  (when  condensed  into  rain)  purges  away  filth. 
The  great  majority  of  writers  are  agreed,  however,  that  the  cloud  itself  is 
here  described  as  being  blotted  out.  Gill  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  height 
and  distance  of  the  clouds  as  being  far  beyond  man's  reach,  implying  that 
forgiveness  is  a  divine  prerogative.  Hendewerk  sees  a  forced  allusion  to  the 
cloud  which  went  before  the  people  in  the  wilderness.  A  more  usual  and 
natural  interpretation  is  that  the  clouds  in  general  are  here  considered  as 
intervening  between  heaven  and  earth,  as  sin  is  expressly  said,  in  ch.  59:2, 
to  separate  between  God  and  his  people.  This  explanation  of  the  metaphor, 
however,  does  not  exclude  the  supposition  of  a  reference  to  the  fleeting 
nature  of  the  cloudy  vapour,  and  the  ease  and  suddenness  with  which  it  is 
dispelled  by  sun  or  wind. — zv  and  )'.'J  are  poetical  equivalents.  So  far  as 
they  can  be  distinguished,  either  in  etymology  or  usage,  the  correct  distinc- 
tion is  the  one  expressed  in  the  English  Version  {thick  cloud  and  cloud), 
which  Henderson  reverses. — Return  unto  me  is  a  phrase  descriptive  of  all 
the  restorations  of  God's  people  from  their  spiritual  wanderings  and  estrange- 
ments. The  restriction  of  this  phrase  and  the  one  which  follows  it  to  the 
restoration  of  the  Jews  from  exile,  is  as  forced  and  arbitrary  as  the  future 
form  given  to  the  verb  in  many  versions. 

V.  23.  Sing,  oh  heavens,  fu?-  Jehovah  hath  done  (it)  ;  shout,  ye  lower 
parts  of  the  earth  ;  break  forth,  ye  mountains,  into  song,  the  forest  and 
every  tree  in  it :  for  Jehovah  hath  redeemed  Jacob,  and  in  Israel  he  will 
glorify  himself.  The  prediction  of  glorious  and  joyful  changes,  as  in  many 
other  cases,  is  clothed  in  the  form  of  an  exhortation  to  all  nature  to  rejoice. 
It  is  essential  to  the  writer's  purpose  that  the  universe  itself  should  be 
addressed,  which  precludes  the  explanation  of  the  verse  by  Grotius,  as 
addressed  to  angels,  kings,  and  common  men  ;  or  by  Vitringa,  as  addressed 
to  the  apostles  and  prophets  (from  a  misplaced  comparison  of  Rev.  18:  20). 
Equally  inconsistent  with  his  purpose  and  at  variance  with  good  taste  is 
the  explanation  of  mountains  as  meaning  kingdoms,  forests,  cities,  etc. — 
The  thing  done  is  what  is  mentioned  in  the  last  clause,  i.  e.  the  redemption 
of  Israel,  including  the  deliverance  from  exile  in  Babylon,  but  not  confined 


104  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I  V. 

to  it. — The  nrbitrary  version  of  the  two  verbs  in  the  last  clause  as  a  preterite 
and  present  or  a  present  and  a  future  is  in  no  respect  to  be  preferred  to  the 
exact  translation  as  a  preterite  and  a  iuture,  expressive  of  what  God  had 
done  and  would  yet  do  for  the  chosen  people. 

V.  24.  Thus  sailh  Jehovah  thy  redeemer,  and  thij  former  from  the 
womb,  I  Jehovah,  making  all.  sintchiiig  the  heavens  alone,  spreading  the 
earth  by  myself  {ov,  loho  xvas  whh  mel).  Some  refer  thus  saith  to  the 
precedin(,r  promises,  and  take  all  that  follows  till  the  end  of  the  chapter  as  a 
description  of  the  being  who  uttered  then).  Others  refer  thus  saith  to  what 
follows,  supply  the  verb  am  before  Jehovah,  and  regard  the  last  clause  of  the 
verse  as  the  divine  declaration.  A  third  conceivable  construction  would 
restrict  it  to  the  closing  question,  who  (ts)  with  me?  i.  e.  who  can  claim 
equality  or  likeness  with  me  ? — There  is  no  need  of  giving  to  the  phrase 
thy  former  a  moral  sense  as  signifying  the  formation  of  character  or  manners, 
as  the  words  from  the  ivomh  are  not  necessarily  exclusive  of  the  period 
before  birth.  For  the  meaning  of  the  figure  itself,  see  above,  on  v.  2  ;  for 
that  of  "|5"i,  on  ch.  42:5. — The  textual  reading  of  the  last  word  makes  it 
an  interrogation,  "tix  "'^ ,  who  (is  or  ivas)  ivith  mel  implying  strong  negation 
and  equivalent  in  meaning  to  the  affirmation,  there  was  no  one  with  me. 
The  marginal  reading  yields  the  same  sense  in  another  way.  '^f}^<'?  ,  from,  by, 
or  of  myself.  (Compare  ""5|ri  Hos.  8  :  4  and  an  tfiuvjov  John  5  :  30.)  The 
objection  that  the  textual  reading  interrupts  the  construction  is  valid  only 
on  the  supposition  that  the  sentence  is  continued  through  the  following 
verses.  If,  as  most  interpreters  assume,  the  last  clause  of  this  verse  contains 
a  proposition,  interrogative  or  affirmative,  this  reading  affords  an  appropriate 
conclusion  to  the  sentence,  and  a  striking  parallel  to  the  phrase  "''^^^  in  the 
other  clause. 

V.'25.  13realcing  the  signs  of  babblers,  and  diviners  he  ivill  madden; 
turning  sages  bnclc,  and  their  knowledge  he  will  stultify.  The  whole  verse 
is  descriptive  ofJehovah  as  convicting  all  prophets,  except  his  own,  of  folly 
and  imposture,  by  falsifying  their  prognostications.  c^'na  is  commonly 
translated  either  lies  or  liais  ;  but  it  is  rather  an  expression  of  contempt, 
denoting  praters,  vain  or  idle  talkers,  and  by  implication  utterers  of  false- 
hood. Signs  are  properly  the  pledges  and  accompaniments  of  predictions, 
but  may  here  be  regarded  as  equivalent  to  prophecy  itself.  These  are  said 
to  be  broken  in  the  same  sense  that  breaking  may  be  predicated  of  a  promise 
or  a  covenant.  The  effect  of  course  would  be  to  make  such  prophets  seem 
like  fools  or  madmen.  (See  2  Sam.  15:31.  Hos.  9:7.)  The  restriction 
of  these  terms  to  the  false  prophets  of  the  Babylonish  exile  is  not  only  arbi- 
trary,  but  at  variance  with  the  context,  which  repeatedly  contrasts  the 


CHAPTERXLIV.  105 

omnipotence  and  omniscience  of  Jehovah  with  the  impotence  of  idols  and 
the  ignorance  of  heathen  prophets. — Because  turning  back  and  being  put 
to  shatne  are  often  joined  together  elsewhere,  Gesenius,  according  to  his 
favourite  method,  makes  them  simply  synonymous  ;  whereas  the  first  expres- 
sion strictly  signifies  defeat,  disappointment,  failure,  with  which  shame  is 
naturally  connected  but  surely  not  identical. — The  alternation  of  the  future 
and  participle  seems  to  have  a  rhythmical  design.  The  distinction  may 
however  be,  that  while  the  latter  signifies  habitual  or  customary  action,  the 
former  expresses  certain  futurity  and  fixed  determination. 

V.  26.  Confirming  the  word  of  his  servant,  and  the  counsel  of  his 
messengers  he  will  fulfil ;  the  (one)  saying  to  (or  as  to)  Jerusalem,  She 
shall  be  inhabited,  and  to  (or  as  to)  the  cities  of  Judah,  They  shall  be  built, 
and  her  ruins  1  ivill  raise.  With  the  frustration  of  the  heathen  prophecies 
is  here  contrasted  the  fulfilment  of  Jehovah's,  who  is  himself  represented  as 
securing  their  accomplishment,  t^^p,^}^  has  here  the  same  sense  as  in  Jer. 
29  :  10.  33  :  14,  viz.  that  of  bringing  a  promise  or  prophecy  to  pass. — By 
his  servant  Jarchi  understands  Moses,  Hitzig  Jeremiah,  Gesenius  the 
prophets  as  a  class,  Knobel  the  genuine  believing  Israel,  whose  hopes  were 
embodied  in  these  prophecies.  Simpler  and  more  satisfactory  than  eitherof 
these  explanations  is  that  which  supposes  his  servant  to  be  primarily  and 
directly  the  writer  himself,  but  considered  as  one  of  a  class  who  are  then 
distinctly  mentioned  in  the  other  member  as  his  messengers.  The  specific 
application  of  the  title  of  God's  servant  to  the  prophets  is  apparent  from 
2  Kings  24  :  2.  Jer.  29  :  19.  35  :  15.  44  :  4.— Gill's  question,  why  his 
servant  may  not  denote  Paul  as  Cocceius  supposes,  is  unanswerable. — 
Counsel,  according  to  Henderson,  here  means  the  counsel  or  purpose  of  God, 
as  declared  by  his  servants.  Gesenius  and  most  other  writers  make  it  a 
description  of  prophecy,  considered  as  involving  or  suggesting  counsel  and 
advice  with  respect  to  the  future.  (Compare  the  similar  application  of  the 
verb  in  ch.4I  :  28.) — The  last  clause,  beginning  with  the  word  -:Hn.  might 
be  considered  as  a  more  specific  designation  or  description  of  his  servant, 
viz.  the  (servant)  saying  etc.  But  this  interpretation  is  precluded  by  the 
double  repetition  of  i^axn  in  the  two  succeeding  verses  and  in  evident 
application  to  Jehovah  himself. — The  construction  of  awn  as  a  verb  of  the 
second  person  (^thou  shah  be  inhabited)  is  forbidden  by  its  masculine  form, 
which  could  be  connected  with  the  name  Jerusalem  only  in  cases  where 
the  latter  is  put  for  its  inhabitants.  For  the  sake  of  uniformity  the  parallel 
expression  is  to  be  translated  in  like  manner.  Gesenius  arbitrarily  translates 
the  first  of  these  verbs  as  an  imperative,  the  second  as  a  future,  and  the  third 
as  a  present.     To  raise  up  the  ruins  of  a  city  is  of  course  to  rebuild  it. 


106  CH  AP  T  E  R    XLI  V. 

V.  27.  The  (one)  saying  to  the  deep,  Be  dry,  and  I  will  dry  vp  thy 
Jloods  (or  streams).  The  Targuin,  followed  by  Kiiiichi  and  others,  exjjlains 
n;v^  as  a  metaphorical  description  of  Babylon,  so  called  on  account  of  its 
wealth,  its  population,  or  its  site.  Vitringa,  Lowth,  and  some  of  the  latest 
writers,  understand  by  n'piis  the  Euphrates,  and  apply  the  whole  verse  to 
the  stratagem  by  which  Cyrus  gained  access  to  Babylon,  as  related  in  the 
(irst  book  of  Herodotus  and  the  seventh  of  Xenophon's  Cyropaedla.  Hen- 
derson thinks  there  may  be  also  an  allusion  to  his  division  of  the  river 
Gyndes.  (See  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  236.)  Ewald  and  others  under- 
stand the  verse  as  a  description  of  God's  power  over  nature  and  the  elements, 
with  or  without  an  allusion  to  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  at  the  exodus. 
This  exposition  is  strongly  recommended  by  the  analogy  of  ch.  42  :  15. 
43  :  16.  50  :  2.  51 :  10.  Thatof  Jer.  50  :  33.  51  :  36  does  not  prove  that 
Isaiah's  description  was  designed  to  have  exclusive  reference  to  the  conquest 
of  Babylon  by  Cyrus,  but  only  that  this  was  included  in  it  as  a  signal 
instance  of  God's  power  to  overcome  all  obstacles,  and  that  the  later  prophet 
made  a  specific  application  of  the  words  accordingly.  There  is  no  need  of 
giving  r\hr^  any  other  than  its  widest  sense  as  a  description  of  the  ocean. 
The  word  streams  or  Jloods  is  applied  in  the  same  way  to  the  sea  by  David 
(Ps.  24  :  2)  and  Jonah  (2  :  4),  in  the  last  of  which  cases  it  is  connected 
with  the  cognate  form  nb^i^i-a .  (Compare  Zech.  10  :  11,  and  Isaiah  19:  5.) 
— The  strict  translation  of  the  last  verb  by  Ewald  as  a  future  (I  will  dry 
up)  is  not  only  more  exact  but  more  expressive  than  the  present  form  pre- 
ferred by  Gesenius  and  others. 

V.  28.  The  (one)  saying  to  (or  as  to)  Cyrus,  My  shepherd,  and  all  my 
pleasure  he  ivill  fulfil,  and  saying  to  Jerusalem,  Thou  shalt  he  built,  and 
(to)  the  temple,  Thou  shalt  he  founded.  It  is  now  universally  admitted  that 
this  verse  has  reference  to  Cyrus  the  Elder  or  the  Great,  the  son  of  Cam- 
byses  king  of  Persia  and  the  grandson  of  Astyages  the  Mede,  the  hero  of 
the  Cyropaedia  and  of  the  first  book  of  Herodotus,  the  same  who  appears 
in  sacred  history  (2  Chr.  36  :  23.  Ezra  1  :  1)  as  the  actual  restorer  of  the 
Jews  from  exile.  He  is  here  called  Jehovah's  shepherd,  which  may  either 
be  the  usual  poetical  designation  of  a  king,  so  common  in  the  oldest  classics, 
or  (as  Umbreit  suggests)  a  special  description  of  his  mission  and  vocation  to 
gather  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel.  It  is  characteristic  of  John 
David  Michaelis,  and  of  the  notions  prevalent  in  his  day  as  to  fidelity  and 
freedom  of  translation,  thai  instead  of  my  shepherd  he  has  the  king  appointed 
by  me  ;  for  which  variation  he  apologizes  on  the  ground  that  the  former  title, 
if  applied  to  so  great  a  king,  might  sound  indecorous  (unanstundig  klingen), 
because  shepherds  now  are  low  and   vulgar   people. — With  ■'>'n  we  may 


CH  APT  E  R    XL  I  V.  107 

either  supply  thou  art  or  he  is,  or  regard  it  as  a  simple  exclamation,  A 
curious  illustration  of  the  ancient  mode  of  writing  Hebrew  is  afForded  by 
Jerome's  remark  on  this  word  :  Verbum  Hebraicum  Roi,  si  per  res  literam 
legamus,  intelligitur  pastor  mens ;  si  per  daleth,  sciens  vel  intelh'gens : 
quarum  simiiitudo  parvo  apice  distinguitur.' — All  my  •pleasure,  i.  e.  with 
respect  to  the  deliverance  of  the  Jews  from  exile. — The  construction  of 
"ibxb'i  is  obscure  and  difficult.  Luther  refers  it  to  an  Indefinite  subject,  so 
that  one  may  say  (dass  man  sage).  Knobel  makes  it  dependent  on  "irxri  in 
the  sense  of  commanding  to  say,  Ewald  regards  it  as  an  idiomatic  use  of 
the  infinitive  instead  of  the  finite  verb,  and  refers  it  to  Jehovah.  Gesenius 
refers  it  to  Cyrus,  and  understands  it  as  explaining  how  he  was  to  fulfil 
Jehovah's  pleasure,  namely,  hy  saying  etc.  This,  on  the  whole,  is  the  most 
natural  construction,  although,  like  the  others,  it  leaves  unexplained  the  intro- 
duction of  the  copulative  particle  before  the  verb,  which  must  either  be 
rendered  as  in  the  English  Version  (even  saying),  or  disregarded  as  an 
idiomatic  pleonasm. — The  same  ambiguity  respecting  the  person  of  the 
verbs  exists  in  the  last  clause  of  this  verse  as  in  v.  26.  Some  take  both  in 
the  second  person,  which  requires  a  preposition  to  be  introduced  before  bs^n  . 
Others  make  both  in  the  third  person,  which  requires  ^^n  to  be  construed 
as  a  feminine  in  this  one  place  exclusively.  This  last  is  the  construction 
finally  adopted  by  Gesenius.  In  his  Commentary  he  had  assumed  an  abrupt 
transition  from  the  third  to  the  second  person. — There  are  two  points  in  this 
verse  upon  which  the  higher  criticism  of  modern  times  has  fastened,  as 
proofs  that  the  passage  is  of  later  origin  than  that  which  tradition  has 
assigned  to  it.  The  first  of  these  is  the  use  of -j-Bn  in  the  sense  of  business 
or  affair,  repeated  instances  of  which  are  cited  from  the  later  books  or  what 
are  so  considered.  But  even  in  the  cases  thus  alleijed  the  chanfe  of  usao-e 
is  extremely  doubtful,  while  in  that  before  us  it  is  purely  imaginary  or  ficti- 
tious. The  word  has  here  its  strict,  original,  and  usual  sense  of  inclination, 
will,  or  pleasure,  that  which  one  delights  in,  chooses,  or  desires;  and  the 
substitution  o(  affair  or  business  would  be  not  only  arbitrary  but  ridiculous. 
— The  other  supposititious  proof  of  later  date  is  the  distinctness  with  which 
Cyrus  is  foretold  by  name,  and  which  is  said  to  be  at  variance  with  the 
general  analogy  and  usage  of  the  prophecies.  Moller's  attempt  to  set  aside 
this  difficulty  by  explaining  onis  as  a  descriptive  name  of  Israel  itself,  has 
found  no  adherents  among  later  writers,  and  instead  of  mitigating  aggravates 
the  evil.  Without  disturbing  the  unanimous  consent  among  interpreters 
that  Cyrus  is  the  subject  of  this  prophecy,  the  objection  admits  of  satis- 
factory solution.  In  the  first  place,  let  it  be  observed,  that  it  proceeds  upon 
a  false  assumption,  namely  that  no  form  of  expression  or  prediction  can 
occur  but  once.  Why  may  not  this  be  a  single  exception  to  the  general 
rule,  analogous  to  that  presented   by  the  occasional   introduction  of  precise 


108  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I  V. 

dates  notwithstanding  the  usual  vagueness  of  prediction  ?  The  want  of 
analogy  might  render  it  a  priori  more  improbable,  and  make  the  necessity  of 
clear  proof  more  imperative,  but  could  not,  in  the  face  of  such  proof,  make 
the  fact  itself  incredible.  But  in  the  next  ])lace,  the  precision  of  this  pro- 
phecy is  not  so  totally  without  analogy  as  the  objectors  commonly  assume. 
One  clearly  defined  instance  of  the  same  kind  is  sufficient  to  relieve  the  case 
before  us  from  the  charge  of  being  wholly  unparalleled,  and  such  an  instance 
is  afforded  by  the  prophecy  respecting  Josiah  in  1  Kings  13  :  2.  The 
assertion  that  the  name  of  Josiah  was  interpolated  by  a  later  hand,  is  not 
only  perfectly  gratuitous  but  equally  available  in  this  case,  where  a  similar 
assumption  would  at  once  remove  all  evidence  of  later  date.  If  that  is  an 
interpolation,  so  may  this  be.  If  that  is  not  one,  this  is  not  without  analogy. 
But  in  the  third  place,  the  alleged  violation  of  analogy  is  much  less  real  than 
apparent ;  since  in  both  the  cases  there  is  reference  to  the  meaning  of  the 
name  as  a  generic  or  descriptive  title,  and  not  merely  to  its  application  as 
an  individual  denomination.  That  Josiah  was  intended  to  be  thus  signi- 
ficant, as  well  in  2  Kings  13  :  2  as  in  Zech.  6:10,  has  been  proved  by 
Hengstenberg  in  his  exposition  of  the  latter  passage.  (Christologie  II. 
p.  71.)  That  ttJ"i-'3  was  likewise  a  descriptive  title  of  the  Persian  kings,  is 
rendered  probable  by  several  distinct  considerations.  The  Hebrew  name 
has  been  identified,  by  some  of  the  most  eminent  comparative  philologists, 
with  a  Persian  word  which  means  the  sun.  The  use  of  such  a  title  would 
agree  well  not  only  with  the  ancient  religion  of  that  people,  but  with  a  w^ell 
known  oriental  usage  of  describing  certain  royal  races  as  descendants  of  the 
sun,  whether  this  be  regarded  as  a  superstitious  myth  or  a  poetical  hyperbole. 
It  is  expressly  asserted  by  Herodotus  that  Cyrus  originally  bore  another 
name.  This  name  is  said  by  Strabo  to  have  been  Agradates,  which  Hitzig 
reckons  as  a  mere  mistake  occasioned  by  confounding  the  river  Kvgog  with 
the  monarch  of  the  same  name,  whereas  Pott,  Von  Lengerke,  and  others, 
trace  it  to  the  same  root  with  a;-ii3  ,  and  the  same  primary  sense  of  sun. 
To  this  etymology  there  seems  to  be  allusion  in  ch.  41  :  2,  25,  where  Cyrus 
is  so  emphatically  said  to  have  risen  in  the  east  and  pursued  his  course 
westwards.  This  explanation  of  the  name  is  strongly  favoured  by  the 
numerous  analogies  in  this  and  other  languages,  the  Egyptian  Pharaohs  and 
Ptolemies,  the  Philistian  Abimelechs,  the  Amalekitish  Agags,  the  Roman 
Caesars.  The  result  of  these  considerations  is,  that  the  prophecy  before  us, 
although  still  relating  to  the  individual  Cyrus,  is  not  so  variant  in  form  from 
the  usual  analogy  of  prophecy,  as  to  afford  any  ground  for  the  suspicion  that 
the  passage  is  on  that  account  of  later  date.  For  the  most  satisfactory  dis- 
cussion of  this  point,  see  Hengstenberg's  Christologie  I.  p.  192  and  Haver- 
nick's  Einleitung  II.  p.  163. 


C  H  AP  T  E  R    XL  V.  109 


CHAPTER    XLV. 

This  chanter  contains  the  same  essential  elements  witli  those  before  it, 
but  in  new  coinbinatlons  and  a  varied  form.  The  great  theme  of  the  pro- 
j)hecy  is  still  the  relaiion  of  Israel  to  God  as  his  chosen  people,  and  to  the 
nations  as  a  source  or  medium  of  saving  knowledge.  This  last  idea  is 
brought  out  with  great  distinctness  at  the  close  of  the  chapter.  The  proofs 
and  illustrations  of  the  doctrine  taught  are  still  drawn  from  the  power  of 
Jehovah,  as  displayed  in  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  as  contrasted  witli 
the  impotence  of  idols.  The  evidence  of  prescience  afforded  by  prophecy 
is  also  here  repeated  and  enlarged  upon.  As  a  particular  prospective  exhi- 
bition both  of  power  and  foreknowledge,  we  have  still  before  us  the  con- 
quests of  Cyrus,  which  are  specifically  foretold  and  explicitly  connected 
with  the  favour  of  Jehovah  as  their  procuring  cause,  and  wiih  the  liberation 
of  his  people  and  the  demonstration  of  his  deity  as  their  designed  effect. 

As  to  the  order  and  arrangement  of  the  parts,  the  chapter  opens,  in 
direct  continuation  of  the  forty-fourth,  with  a  further  prophecy  of  Cyrus 
and  of  his  successes,  vs.  1-3.  These  are  then  referied  to  the  power  of  God 
and  his  design  of  mercy  towards  his  people,  so  that  all  misgivings  or  distrust 
must  be  irrational  and  impious,  vs.  4-13.  Then  leaving  Cyrus  out  of  view, 
the  Prophet  turns  his  eyes  to  the  nations,  and  declares  that  they  must  be 
subdued,  but  only  in  order  to  be  blessed  and  saved,  which  is  declared  to 
have  been  the  divine  purpose  and  revealed  as  such  from  the  beginning, 
vs.  14-25. 

V.  1.  Thus  soith  Jehovah  to  his  anointed,  to  Cyrus,  whose  right  hand 
I  have  held  fast,  to  tread  down  before  him  ncitious,  and  the  loi)is  oj' kings 
I  will  loose  ;  to  open  before  him  double  doors,  nnd  gates  shall  not  be  shut. 
The  words  of  Jehovah  seem  to  begin  regularly  with  the  next  verse  ;  but  even 
in  this,  which  is  strictly  introductory,  they  are  mingled  with  the  Prophet's 
description  of  Cyrus,  a  mode  of  composition  very  common  in  Hebrew,  and 
among  the  oldest  writers,  who  thought  more  of  the  idea  than  of  the  form  in 
which  it  was  expressed.  The  accumulation  of  descriptive  epithets,  which 
Gesenius  represents  as  characteristic  of  these  Later  Prophecies,  arises  from 
the  fact  that  one  main  object  which  the  writer  had  in  view  was  to  impress 
upon  the  reader's  mind  the  attributes  of  God  and  of  his  chosen  instruments. 
— Cyrus  is  here  called  the  Lord's  anointed,  a  designation  elsewhere  limited, 


110  CH  A  P  T  E  R    XL  V. 

as  Calvin  says,  to  the  sacerdotal  monarchy  of  Judah,  which  prefigured  Christ 
in  hotli  his  offices  of  priest  and  king. — INlost  writers  understand  it  here  as  a 
synonyme  of  kin^,  derived  from  Jewish  usages,  and  not  intended  to  indicate 
any  thing  peculiar  in  the  royalty  of  Cyrus,  except  that  he  was  raised  up  by 
Jehovah  for  a  special  purpose.  Calvin  thinks  it  still  more  pregnant  and 
emphatic,  and  descriptive  of  Cyrus  as  a  representative  of  Christ,  in  this  one 
thing,  that  he  was  instrumentally  the  saviour  or  deliverer  of  Israel  from 
bondage. — The  treading  down  of  nations  is  a  trait  peculiarly  appropriate  in 
this  case,  as  the  Greek  historians  give  long  catalogues  of  distinct  nations 
subjugated  by  Cyrus,  such  as  the  Medes,  Hyrcanians,  Assyrians,  Arabians, 
Cappadocians,  Phrygians,  Lydians,  Carians,  Babylonians^  etc. — To  loose 
the  loins  of  kings  is  explained  by  Calvin  as  meaning  co  weaken  them, 
because  the  strength  is  in  the  loins  ;  and  Rosenmi'iller  cites,  in  illustration  of 
this  usage,  the  Latin  verb  and  adjective,  dehimbo  and  dumbis.  Luther, 
Clericus,  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  removal  of  the 
sword-belt,  as  the  ancient  method  of  disarming  or  dismissing  from  active 
service.  Either  of  these  explanations  is  better  than  Jerome's,  which  sup- 
poses an  allusion  simply  to  the  royal  cincture  as  a  badge  of  office.  But 
most  of  the  modern  writers  are  agreed  that  the  words  at  least  include  a 
reference  to  the  ordinary  use  of  the  girdle  as  a  part  of  oriental  dress,  on 
which  the  activity  of  the  wearer  and  his  exercise  of  strength  are  in  a  great 
degree  dependent,  as  it  gathers  up  and  tightens  the  flowing  garments  which 
would  otherwise  impede  his  movements. — The  exclusive  reference  of  this 
clause  to  the  kings  of  Lydia  and  Babylon  is  arbitrary,  and  detracts  from  the 
greatness  of  the  promise  and  description. — The  dual  t'^n^'n  is  the  proper 
Hebrew  term  for  valves,  folding-doors,  or  two-leaved  gates.  All  inter- 
preters admit  that  while  this  clause,  in  its  most  general  sense,  is  perfectly 
appropriate  to  all  the  fortified  places  which  were  attacked  by  Cyrus,  it  is 
specifically  and  remarkably  appropriate  to  the  taking  of  Babylon.  It  can 
scarcely  be  considered  a  fortuitous  coincidence,  that  Herodotus  speaks  of 
the  gates  which  led  to  the  river  as  having  been  left  open  on  the  night  of  the 
attack  ;  and  Xenophon  says  the  doors  of  the  palace  itself  having  been 
unguardedly  opened,  the  invaders  took  possession  of  it  almost  without 
resistance.  These  apparent  allusions  to  particular  circumstances  and 
events,  couched  under  general  predictions,  are  far  more  striking  and  con- 
clusive proofs  of  inspiration  than  the  most  explicit  and  detailed  prediction 
of  the  particular  event  alone  could  be. 

V.  2.  I  icill  go  before  thee,  and  uneven  places  I  will  level,  doors  of 
brass  I  ivill  break,  and  bars  of  iron  I  ivill  cut.  The  first  clause  describes 
the  removal  of  difficulties  under  the  figures  used  for  the  same  purpose  in 
eh.  40  :  4.     The  other  clause  w^ould  seem  at  first  sight  to  contain  an  analo- 


CH  A  P  T  E  R    XL  V.  HI 

goiis  figure  ;  but  it  really  includes  one  of  those  minute  coincidences  with 
history,  of  which  we  have  already  had  an  example  in  the  preceding  verse. 
Herodotus  and  Abydenus  say  expressly  that  the  gates  of  Babylon  were  all 
of  brass.      (Compare  Ps.  107  :  16.) 

V.  3.  And  I  will  give  thee  treasures  of  darkness  and  hidden  riches  of 
secret  places,  in  order  that  thou  marjest  know  that  I  Jehovah,  the  (^one)  calling 
thee  by  name,  am  the  God  of  Israel.  It  is  thought  by  some  eminent  writers 
that  no  conquests  have  ever  been  attended  with  such  acquisition  of  wealth 
as  those  of  Cyrus.  Pliny's  account  of  what  he  obtained  from  Croesus 
makes  it,  according  to  Brerewood's  computation,  more  than  126,000,000 
pounds  sterling.  The  last  clause  gives  a  reason  why  this  circumstance  is 
mentioned,  namely,  in  order  that  Cyrus  might  be  able  to  identify  the  being 
who  brought  it  to  pass  with  the  being  who  foretold  it.  The  same  con- 
sideration will  account  for  the  mention  of  the  name  of  Cyrus  ;  so  that  even 
if  it  were  a  bolder  violation  of  analogy  and  usage  than  it  is,  there  would  still 
be  a  sufficient  explanation  of  it  furnished  by  the  divine  purpose  to  exert  a 
direct  influence  through  this  prediction  upon  Cyrus  himself.  That  such  an 
influence  was  really  exerted  by  the  writings  of  Isaiah  is  expressly  asserted 
by  Joseph  us,  and  would  seem  to  be  implied  in  the  monarch's  solemn  recog- 
nition of  Jehovah  as  the  true  God  and  the  author  of  his  own  successes. 
(Ezra  1  :  2.) 

V.  4.  For  the  sake  of  my  servant  Jacob  and  Israel  my  chosen,  therefore 
will  I  call  thee  by  thy  name,  I  will  give  thee  a  title  and  thou  host  not  knoion 
vie.  Not  only  for  God's  glory  in  the  general,  but  with  a  view  to  the  promotion 
of  his  gracious  purposes  towards  Israel. — The  i  before  Si'^p*?.  introduces  the 
apodosis,  and  may  be  taken  as  equivalent  to  therefore. — The  sense  oi  speak- 
ing kindly,  which  the  modern  writers  give  to  ?]i3N  ,  is  here  much  less  appro- 
priate than  that  of  giving  a  title  of  honour,  with  apparent  reference  to  the 
epithets  of  shepherd  and  anointed,  bestowed  on  Cyrus  alone  among  the 
heathen  princes.  Thou  hast  not  known  me  may  either  mean  that  he  was  not 
a  follower  of  the  true  religion,  or  that  the  name  was  given  long  before  he 
did  or  could  know  any  thing  of  him  who  gave  it.  The  verb  expresses 
past  time  not  in  reference  to  the  date  of  the  prediction,  but  to  that  of  the 
fulfilment. 

V.  5.  /  am  Jehovah  (i.  e.  the  eternal,  self-existent  God)  and  there  is 
no  other ;  except  me  there  is  no  God ;  I  will  gird  thee  and  thou  hast  not 
known  me.  What  is  said  before  of  naming  him  is  here  said  of  girding  him, 
i.  e.  investing  him  with  royal  dignity  or  personally  strengthening  him  ;  both 
may  be  included. 


11-2  C  11  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  ^^ 

V.  6.  That  they  may  liwiv,  from  the  rising  of  the  sun  to  the  west  (or 
to  his  going  down),  that  there  is  none  ivithout  me;  I oni  Jehovah,  and  there 
is  no  other.  AVli:it  was  said  before  of  Cyrus  in  particular  is  now  said  of 
men  in  general,  viz.  that  they  must  he  convinced  in  this  way  that  the  God 
of  Israel  is  the  one  true  God.  Some  of  the  Jewish  critics  regard  the  final 
letter  of  ns^r-a  as  a  suffix  referring  to  the  feminine  noun  uio^;:,  notwithstand- 
ing the  absence  of  mappik.  The  noun  to  which  it  is  annexed  would  then 
have  its  primary  sense  (fjccasus,  setting)  ;  otherwise  it  is  a  feminine  designa- 
tion of  the  west. 

V.  T.  Forming  light  and  creating  darkness,  making  peace  and  creating 
evil,  I  (rt///)  Jehovah  doing  all  these  (jhings.)  Saadias,  followed  by 
Vitringa,  Lowth,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Henderson,  and  Umbreit,  supposes  an 
allusion  to  the  dualism  or  doctrine  of  two  co-eternal  principles  as  held  by 
the  ancient  Persians.  Gesenius  objects  that  the  terms  are  too  indefinite, 
and  their  general  sense  too  obvious,  to  admit  of  this  specific  application. 
But  this  whole  passage  is  characterized  by  the  recurrence  of  expressions, 
the  generic  sense  of  which  seems  clear,  but  which,  at  the  same  time,  seem 
to  bear  and  even  to  require  a  more  specific  explanation,  unless  we  choose 
rather  to  assume  an  extraordinary  series  of  fortuitous  coincidences.  The 
open  doors,  the  gates  of  brass,  the  hidden  treasures,  are  examples  of  this 
double  sense,  if  such  it  may  be  called,  within  the  compass  of  three  verses. 
This  analogy  makes  it  rather  probable  than  otherwise  that  in  the  case  before 
us,  while  the  Prophet's  language  may  be  naturally  taken  as  a  general 
description  of  God's  universal  power,  an  allusion  was  intended  to  the  great 
distinctive  doctrine  of  the  faith  in  which  Cyrus  had  most  probably  been 
educated.  For  although  it  cannot  be  distinctly  proved,  it  can  as  little  be 
disproved,  and  is  intrinsically  altogether  credible,  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Zendavesia  is  as  old  as  Cyrus. 

V.  8.  Drop  (or  distil)  ye  heavens  from  above,  and  let  the  clouds  pour  out 
righteousness  ;  let  the  earth  open,  and  let  salvation  and.  righteousness  grow,  let 
her  bring  {them)  forth  together.  I  Jehovah  have  created  it.  There  is  a 
singular  equivoque  in  the  common  version  of  the  first  clause,  drop  doivn  ye 
heavens  from  above,  which  might  seem  to  be  a  call  upon  thesJcies  to  fall,  if  the 
sense  were  not  determined  by  the  parallel  expression.  The  prediction  of  events 
in  the  form  of  a  command  is  peculiarly  frequent  in  Isaiahs  later  prophecies. 
The  modern  explanation  of  PT;2£  and  ni^^Si  as  meaning  victory,  prosperity,  etc.  is 
entirely  arbitrary,  as  we  have  already  seen  in  other  cases.  The  manifesta- 
tion of  God's  righteousness,  including  his  fidelity  to  his  engagements,  is 
constantly  recognised  in  Scripture  as  one  chief  end  of  his  dispensations. — 
In  the  second  clause  there  is  a  difficulty  of  construction,  arising  from  the 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  V.  113 

use  of  the  plural  form  ^^S'^,  to  explain  which  some  make  y^ii  a  collective, 
others,  55!ij';i.  (Compare  ch.  16:4.  and  Ps.  119  :  103.)  After  all  attempts, 
however,  to  resolve  the  syntax,  the  most  satisfactory  construction,  ahhough 
not  the  most  consistent  with  the  masoretic  accents,  is  the  one  proposed  by 
Kimchi,  who  connects  the  plural  verb  witli  the  next  two  nouns,  and  repeats 
y-tii.  as  the  subject  of  n'i:c5ir!.  Next  to  this  is  the  one  given  by  Luzzatto, 
who  makes  ii-is-;  mean  bring  forth  (as  in  Deut.  29 :  17)  and  agree  with 
Q-iTjtD. — J,  D.  Michaelis  explains  this  whole  verse  as  relating  to  prophecy 
and  its  fulfilment. 

V.  9.    Woe  to  (or  aJas  for)  him  striving  with   his  maJcer — a  potsherd 
with  potsherds  of  earth.   Shall  day  say  to  its  former,  What  art  thou  doing? 
and  thy  ivork,  He  has  no  hands  ?      The   translation  of  ^in   as   a    simple 
exclamation  by  Hitzig  (^Ha  !)  and  Ewald  (O/)  does  not  meet  the  requisitions 
either  of  general  usage  or  the  context,  which   require   it  to  be  taken   as  an 
expression  of  displeasure,  or  sympathy,  or  both. — Striving  with  God  is  not 
merely  active  resistance,  but  opposition   of  judgment   and  affection. — The 
word  i"i:i\  used   twice   in  this   verse,  is   peculiarly  expressive ;   because   it 
derives  from  etymology  the  general   sense   of  former,  fashioiier,  and  from 
usage  the  specific  sense  of  potter,  which   is  in  strict   agreement   with  tfce 
fitrurative  lanfruaee  of  both  clauses. — The  second  member  of  the  first  c^mse 
has  been  very  variously  construed.     The  analogy  of  what  precedes  would 
seem  to  make  it  mean,  woe  to  the  potsherd  (^striving)  with  the  poi^herds  of 
the  earth.     But  this  is  universally  agreed  to  be  inadmissible,  ^  proof  that 
the   principle  of  parallelism    has   its  limitations.     Mariana  ingeniously  but 
needlessly  proposes  to  read  '^'iJ'in :  let  the  potsherd  strive  w'f^  the  workmen 
(i.  e.  potters)  of  the  earth.      Vitringa  applies   the  same  .construction  to  the 
common  text :  let  the  potsherd  strive   with  the  potsh»i"^is  of  the  earth,  but 
not  with  God.     The  Peshito  renders  it,  a  potsherf  of  (ov  from)  the  pot- 
sherds of  the  earth,  thus  making  the  whole  phrasers  description  of  the  weak- 
ness and  insignificance  of  man.     This  constru&ion  is  adopted  by  the  modern 
writers,  almost  without  exception  ;  most  of  n-hom,  however,  give  to  rx  its 
proper  sense  o{ ivith,  which  they  suppose  .'pimply likeness  and  relationship, 
like  DS  in  Ecc.  2  :  16.— It  seems  to   be  a  just  observation   of  Hitzig,  that 
earth  is  not  mentioned  as  the  dwellini:  of  the  potsherd,  but  as  its  material, 
which  is  indeed  the  predominant   u-^age  of  n^-js  as  distinguished  from  -("^x. 
The  verb  at  the  beginning  of  tlipi'ast  clause  might  be  rendered  either  does, 
will,  can,  or  should  say  ;  but  afi  that  is  necessary  to  the  writer's  purpose 
may  be  considered  as  implieii  or  included  in  the  simple  future.     (Compare 
ch.  10:  15,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  195.)     The  same  thing  is  sub- 
stantially true  of  the  verb   ntosn;  but  in  this  case,  the  exact  force  of  the 

'    8 


114  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  V. 

Hebrew  word  meiy  be  best  expressed  by  our  compound  present,  icliat  art 
thou  doing  or  about  to  do  !  This  is  the  common  Hebrew  formula  for  calling 
to  account,  or  questioning  the  propriety  of  what  one  does.  (See  Job  9  :  12. 
Ecc.  8:4.  Dan.  4:  32.) — The  last  words  of  the  verse  have  also  been  the 
subject  of  many  discordant  explanations.  Some  of  the  older  writers  make 
them  a  continuation  of  the  same  speech:  ivhat  art  thou  doing  1  and  (as 
for)  thy  work,  it  has  no  hands,  i.  e.  it  is  unfinished.  But  most  interpreters 
agree  that  thi/  work  introduces  a  new  speaker.  And  (^shall)  thy  ivork  (say 
of  thee),  he  has  no  hands]  The  unexpected  introduction  of  the  second 
person  (thy  work)  led  Houbigant  and  Lowih  to  suppose  a  transposition  of 
the  pronouns,  and  to  read  his  work  and  thou  hast  no  hands,  which  may 
be  safely  set  aside  as  a  violent  and  worthless  emendation.  INIaurer  accounts 
for  the  second  person  by  supposing  it  to  be  employed  indefinitely,  ^At/  ivork, 
L  e.  the  work  of  any  one  to  whom  the  words  may  be  addressed.  Hitzig 
still  better  makes  the  Prophet  pass  abruptly  from  the  sign  to  the  thing 
signified,  from  the  supposed  case  to  the  real  one,  from  the  potter  to  Jehovah. 
There  are  no  hands  to  him,  i.  e.  he  has  no  power.  The  absurdity  consists 
in  the  thing  made  denying  the  existence  of  the  hands  by  which  it  was  itself 
produced.  The  essential  idea  is  the  same  as  in  ch.  10:  15,  but  the 
e-pression  here  much  stronger,  since  the  instrument  is  not  merely  charged 
w'lit  exaltino"  itself  above  the  efficient  agent,  but  the  creature  with  denying 
the  ptAver  or  skill  of  its  creator. — The  lestrietion  of  tljis  verse,  and  of  those 
which  fUlow,  to  the  Babylonians,  or  the  Jews  in  exil^,  is  entirely  arbitrary 
and  at  varunce  with  the  context,  which  refers  to  the  conquests  of  Cyrus 
and  their  co^equences,  not  as  the  main  subject  of  the  pvophecy,  but  as 
illustrations  of  k  aeneral  truth. — The  form  of  speech  used  by  Paul  in  Rom. 
9  :  20.  (why  hasithou  made  me  thus  ?)  is  not  a  version  but  a  paraphrase  of 
nt;?.;p-na,  in  which  iowever  it  is  really  included. 

V.  10.  Woe  to  (him J  saying  to  a  father,  JVhativilt  thou  hcgci,  and  to  a 
woman,  What  wilt  thou  ht'ng  forth!  The  same  idea  is  again  exj)ressed, 
but  in  a  form  still  more  emp\.atic  and  revolting.  The  incongruities  which 
have  perplexed  interpreters  in  ti^is  verse  are  intentional  aggravations  of  the 
impious  absurdity  which  it  descrnjes.  The  arbitrary  change  of  the  future 
to  the  present  (what  hegettesi  thou  J^  or  the  past  (what  hast  thou  brought 
forth  1)  is  not  only  incorrect  in  point  of  grammar,  but  subversive  of  the 
writer's  main  design,  which  is  to  represem.  the  doubt  and  discontent  of  men 
in  reference  to  God's  future  dealings  with  t\xem  as  no  less  monstrous  than 
the  supposition  of  a  child's  objection  to  its  own  birth.  Such  an  objection, 
it  is  true,  cannot  be  offered  in  the  case  supposed  ;  but  in  the  real  case  it 
ouffht  to  be  held  equally  impossible.     This  view  of  the  Prophet's  meaning, 


CHAPTERXLV.  ]15 

if  correct,  of  course  precludes  the  explanation  of  the  words  as  a  complaint 
of  weakness  or  deformity,  or  an  expression  of  disgust  with  life  like  that  in 
Job  3  :  20.  and  Jeremiah  20  :  14. 

V.  1 J .    Thus  saith  Jehovah,  the  Holy  One   of  Israel  and  his   Maker, 
Ask  me  {of^  the  things  to  come,  concerning  my  sons  and  concerning  the  work 
of  my  hands  ye  may  command  me.     The  Septuagiut   divides    the   sentence 
difterently,  and  reads  6  >To<;^'rr«i,- T«  f,Yf(»;^o«fr«.     This,  which  seems  to  be  a 
mere  inadvertence  or  mistake,  is  regarded   by  Lowth   as  a  sufficient  reason 
for  a  change  of  text,  and  he  translates  accordingly  he  that  formtth  the  things 
ivhich  are  to  come.     All  other  writers  seem   to  follow   the  masoretic  inter- 
))unctlon,  which  connects  the  participle  with   the  second  clause.      Verbs  of 
asking,  as  in  Latin,  govern  two  accusatives.      (See  Ps.  137  :  3.) — Vitringa 
takes  ■'^^'X"^   as   a   preterite,  and   makes    the  last   clause   an   interrogation, 
They   ask  me,  and  will  ye  command  me  1     But  we   have  then  an    abrupt 
transition,  not  only  from  affirmation   to  interrogation,  but  from  the  third  to 
the  second  person.      Hitzig  removes  one  of  these  anomalies  by  aggravating 
the   other,  reading    both    the    verbs    interrogatively,  f/o  they  ask?  and  will 
ye   command  ?       By   far  the   simplest   syntax  is  the  common   one,  which 
makes  the  first  verb  an  imperative,  analogous  in  form  to  "^s^r'caj  (Gen.  23  :  8), 
whereas  the  preterite  would  be  ":?ibsd,  as  in  Ps.  137  :  3.      (Compare  "i^^'iJ 
Gen.  32  :  18.)     Some  who  adopt  this  explanation  of  the  first  verb  give  the 
other  an  imperative  form  also,  a  neeJJess  and   dubious  assimilation.     There 
is  also  a  diversity  of  judgment  us  to  thc^  rt-latiou  of  these  verbs,  and  of  the 
sentences  in  which  they  sfand,  to  one  another.      Most  of  the  late  interpreters 
suppose  an  antithetical  relation,  and  explain  the  clause  as  meaning,  you  may 
ask  me    about   tJiings   to   come,  but   leave   the  disposal    of  my  children  to 
myself.     This  not  only  requires  an  adversative  particle  to  be  inserted,  which 
is  often  tl)e  force  of  the  Hebrew  copulative,  but  involves  a  distinction  without 
a  dilference  ;  since  the  fortunes  of  God's  children  were  themselves  things  to 
come,  and  the  very  things  to  come   respecting  which  the   people  would  be 
probably  most  anxious   to   inquire.     It   is    better   therefore   to   regard    the 
parallelism  as  synonymous,  not  antithetical,  and  to  understand  both  verbs  as 
conceding  an  indulgence   to   those  who  are   addressed.      You  may  ask  me 
concerning  things  to  come,  for  I  am  able  to  inform  you  ;  you  may  trust  my 
children  to  my  care,  for  I  am  abundantly  able  to  protect  them. — b?  n^jt  is  a 
common  expression  for  giving  one  authority  over  any  thing  or  person,  or  in 
other  words  committing  it  to  him,  and  leaving  it  at  his  disposal. — For  the 
meaning  o(  work  of  my  hands  as  an  equivalent  to  my  children  or  my  people, 
see  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  367. 

V.  12.  /  made  the  earth,  and  man  upon  it  I  created ;  I,  my  hands, 


116  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    XL  V. 

spread  the  heavens,  and  all  their  host  commanded.  This  is  a  justification  of 
the  claim  in  the  last  clause  of  the  foregoing  verse,  or  a  statement  of  the 
reason  why  he  could  ho  trusted  to  protect  his  people,  namely,  because  he 
was  almighty,  and  had  proved  himself  to  be  so  in  creation. — The  personal 
pronoun  is  emphatic  in  both  clauses,  as  if  he  had  said,  it  is  I  ivho  made,  ox, 
I  {and  no  other)  made  etc.  The  construction  of  the  second  of  these 
pronouns  with  my  hands  has  been  variously  explained.  Some  regard  the 
latter  as  equivalent  to  an  ablative  of  instrument  in  Latin:  I  with  my  hands 
have  spread  etc.  Others  consider  it  an  instance  of  the  idiom  which  adds  the 
personal  pronoun  to  the  suffix  for  the  sake  of  emphasis  :  I,  my  hands,  spread, 
i.  e.  my  own  hands  spread.  In  such  constructions  the  personal  pronoun 
commonly  stands  last.  A  third  supposition  is  that  the  pronoun  is  in 
apposition  with  the  noun  itself,  and  not  so  much  emphatic  as  explanatory. 
I(thatis  to  say,  my  hands)  have  spread.  (Compare  Ps.  3  :  5.  17  :  13.  14. 
44:3.  60:  1.) — The  last  words  of  the  verse  admit  of  two  explanations. 
We  may  understand  the  figure  as  a  military  one,  and  give  the  verb  the 
military  sense  of  commanding.  Or  we  may  take  host  as  a  common 
expression  for  contents  or  inhabitants,  and  understand  the  verb  as  meaning 
called  into  existence.  (Cou\pare  Ps.  33  :  9.)  In  itself,  the  former  explana- 
tion seems  entitled  to  the.  preft^rence  ;  but  it  requires  the  verb  to  be  construed 
as  an  indefinite  praeter  oi  a  present,  whereas  all  the  other  verbs,  though 
similar  in  form,  relate  to  a  exterminate  past  time,  viz.  the  time  of  the 
creation. 

V.  13.  I  (and  no  other)   raised  him   up   in  righteousness,  and  all  his 
tvays  ivill  I  make  straight  (or  level)  ;   {it  is)  he  {that)  shall  build  my  city, 
and  my  captivity  (or  exiles)   he  will  send   {home),  not  for  reward,  and  not 
for  hire,  saith  Jehovah  of  Hosts.     From  the  general  proof  of  divine  power 
afforded  by  creation  he  descends  to  the  particular   exercise  of  his  omnipo- 
tence and  wisdom  in  the  raising  up  of  Cyrus,  who  is  thus  referred  to  without 
the  express  mention  of  his  name,  because  he  had   been  previously  made  the 
subject   of  a   similar  appeal,  and   the   Prophet  simply  takes  up  the  thread 
which  he  had  dropped  at   the   close   of  the  fifth   verse,  or  perhaps  of  the 
seventh.      For    the   sense  of  raising  up  in   righteousness  see   above,  on 
oh.  41  :  2,  25.  42  :  6.     In  this,  as  well  as   in   the  other  places,  Vitringa 
supposes  an  allusion  to  the  personal  character  of  Cyrus,  which  he  defends 
with  f^reat  warmth  against  Burnet's  remark  in  his   History  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, that  God  sometimes  uses  bad  men  as  his  instruments,  such  as  the  cruel 
Cyrus.       The   statements  of  Herodotus   to   this  effect   Vitringa  treats  as 
fabulous,  and  claims  full  credit  for  the  glowing  pictures  of  the  Cyropaedia. 
This  distinction  is  not  only  strange  in  itself,  but  completely  at  war  with  the 
conclusions  of  the  ablest  modern  critics  and  historians.     Nor  is  there  the 


CHAPTERXLV.  117 

least  need  of  Insisting  thus  upon  the  moral  excellence  of  Cyrus,  who  in  either 
case  was  just  as  really  a  consecrated  instrument  of  the  divine  righteousness, 
as  the  Medes  and  Persians  generally,  who  are  so  described  in  ch.  13  :  3. 
(See  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  246.)  At  the  same  time  allowance  must 
be  made  for  the  difference  between  what  Cyrus  was  before  and  after  he 
became  acquainted  with  the  true  religion,  (See  above,  on  v.  3.)  Tiie 
figure  of  straight  or  level  paths  has  the  same  sense  as  in  ch.  40  :  3. — My 
city,  i.  e.  the  holy  city,  Jerusalem,  of  which  Cyrus  was  indirectly  the  re- 
builder. — The  form  of  the  verb  send  here  used  is  not  unfrequently  applied 
to  the  setting  free  of  prisoners  or  slaves. — The  last  clause  seems  decisive  of 
the  question  whether  ch.  43  :  3,  4.  should  be  understood  as  a  general 
declaration  of  God's  distinguishing  affection  for  his  people,  disposing  him  to 
favour  them  at  the  expense  of  other  nations,  or  as  a  specific  promise  that 
Cyrus  should  conquer  Ethiopia  and  Egypt,  as  a  compensation  for  releasing 
Israel,  in  which  case  he  could  not  be  said,  in  any  appropriate  sense,  to  have 
set  them  free  without  reward  or  hire. 

V.  14.  Thus  sait/i  Jehovah,  The  toil  of  Egypt  and  the  gain  of  Cush 
and  the  Sebaim  men  of  measure  unto  thee  shall  pass,  and  to  thee  shall  they 
belotig,  after  thee  shall  they  go,  in  chains  shall  they  jmss  over  (or  along)  ; 
and  unto  thee  shall  they  how  themselves,  to  thee  shall  they  pray  (saying), 
Only  in  thee  (is)  God,  and  there  is  none  besides,  no  (pother)  God.  The 
first  clause  specifies  labour  and  traffic  as  the  two  great  sources  of  wealth, 
here  put  for  wealth  itself,  or  for  the  people  who  possessed  it.  -''5$7^  is 
construed  by  some  writers  as  a  genitive  dependent  on  "no  ,  the  trade  of 
Ethiopia  and  of  the  Sabeans  ;  by  others,  as  the  nominative  to  the  next 
verb,  the  Sabeans  shall  pass  over  to  thee  ;  a  grammatical  distinction  not 
afiecting  the  sense.  For  the  true  sense  of  the  geographical  or  national  names 
here  mentioned,  see  above,  on  ch.  43  :  3.  In  both  i)lace3  they  are  named, 
as  Hitzig  well  observes,  by  way  of  sample  (beispielsweise)  for  the  heathen 
world.  To  the  reasons  before  given  for  this  interpretation  we  may  here  add 
the  general  reference  to  idolaters  in  v.  {Q. — The  Targum  seems  to  explain 
n-?3  here  as  meaning  trade  (x-i^no)  ;  and  others  give  it  that  of  tribute,  which 
it  has  in  Chaldee  (Ezra  4:20)  and  in  Neh.  5:4.  But  the  meaning  men 
of  measure,  i.  e.  of  extraordinary  stature,  is  determined  by  the  analogy  of 
Num.  13:32.  1  Chr.  11:23.  20:6,  and  confirmed  by  the  description  of 
the  Ethiopians  in  ancient  history,  Herodotus  speaking  of  them  as  ^ayiaroi 
uvOQanar,  and  Solinus  more  specifically  as  duodecim  pedes  longi.  Ac- 
cording to  Knobel,  their  stature  is  here  mentioned,  in  order  to  show  that 
they  were  able-bodied,  and  would  be  profitable  servants  to  the  Jews  ;  but 
most  interpreters  correctly  understand  it  as  a  circumstance  intended  to 
enhance  the  glory  and  importance  of  the  concjuest. — 7\^,\'-l  nfight  be  under- 


118  CHAPTERXLV. 

stood  to  mean  against  thee ;  but  this  sense  is  precluded  by  the  next  phrase, 
they  shall  he  (or  belong)  to  thee,  as  well  as  by  the  epexegetical  addition, 
they  shall  pass  in  chains.  Whether  these  are  here  considered  as  imposed 
by  their  conquerors,  or  by  themselves  in  token  of  a  voluntary  submission,  is 
a  question  which  the  words  themselves  leave  undecided.  The  same  thing 
may  be  said  of  the  prostration  mentioned  afterwards,  which  in  itself  might 
be  considered  as  denoting  the  customary  oriental  act  of  obeisance  or  civil 
adoration,  although  usually  found  in  such  connexions  as  require  it  to  be 
taken  in  a  religious  sense,  which  is  here  furtlier  Indicated  by  the  addition  of 
the  verb  to  pray.  Tlie  seeming  incongruity  of  thus  ascribing  divine  honours 
to  a  creature,  may  be  avoided  by  taking  Tp^it  in  a  local  sense,  as  meaning 
towards  thee,  but  not  to  thee,  as  the  object  of  the  adoration.  But  a  simpler 
solution  of  the  difficulty  is,  that  these  strong  expressions  were  employed 
because  the  explanation  was  to  follow.  Instead  of  saying,  they  shall  icorship 
God  who  dwells  in  thee,  the  Prophet  makes  his  language  more  expressive 
by  saying,  they  shall  worship  thee  ;  and  then  immediately  explains  his  own 
language  by  adding  their  acknowledgment,  only  in  thee  is  God,  or  to  give 
the  Hebrew  word  its  full  force,  an  almighty  God,  implying  that  the  gods  of 
other  nations  were  but  gods  in  name.  Tliis  exclusive  recognition  of  the  God 
of  Israel  is  then  repeated  in  a  way  which  may  to  some  seem  tautological, 
but  which  is  really  emphatic  in  a  high  degree. — The  application  of  the  suf- 
fixes in  this  verse  to  Cyrus  is  inconsistent  with  the  masoretic  pointing,  which 
makes  them  feminine.  This  is  regarded  by  Vitringa  and  Gesenius  as  an 
oversight  of  Grotius,  occasioned  by  his  looking  at  the  Latin  text  and  not  the 
Hebrew.  But  the  same  construction  seems  to  be  approved  by  Aben  Ezra 
and  Ewald,  who  must  therefore  be  considered  as  departing  from  the  common 
punctuation.  The  feminine  pronouns  of  the  common  text  may  be  referred 
either  to  r^i^;.  (captivity)  in  v.  13,  or  to  "'"^'^  (my  city)  in  the  same  verse,  or 
to  ^i*'^^"'?  ri'is  (the  congregation  of  Israel),  in  all  which  cases  the  real  object 
of  address  is  still  substantially  the  same,  viz.  the  ancient  church  or  chosen 
people. — The  question  now  presents  itself,  in  what  sense  the  subjection  of 
the  nations  is  here  promised.  That  a  literal  conquest  of  Ethio])ia  and  Egypt 
by  the  Jews  themselves  is  here  predicted,  none  can  maintain  but  those  who 
wish  to  fasten  on  Isaiah  the  charge  of  ignorance  or  gross  imposture.  An 
ingenious  Jewish  writer  of  our  own  day,  Luzzatto,  supposes  the  Prophet  to 
foretell  a  literal  subjection  of  these  countries,  not  by  Israel,  but  by  Cyrus  ; 
and  explains  the  whole  verse  as  describing  the  conduct  of  the  captives  when 
they  should  pffS5  by  the  land  of  Israel  in  chains  on  their  way  to  Persia,  and 
acknowledge  the  supremacy  of  Jehovah  by  worshipping  towards  his  earthly 
residence.  In  order  to  sustain'  this  ingenious  and  original  interpretation,  its 
author  is  under  the  necessity  of  taking  i>"'Si  and  ^ns  as  elliptical  exjiressions 
for  TT,  "'i^^^  and  nnc^  -^scsx  ,  men  of  labour,  men  of  traffic,  i.  e.  labourers  and 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  V.  II9 

traders.  He  is  also  forced  to  explain  away  some  of  the  most  significant 
expressions,  such  as  they  shall  be  thine,  they  shall  go  after  thee,  as  merely 
indicating  disposition  or  desire.  The  violence  tliiis  done  to  the  obvious 
meaning  of  the  Prophet's  language  is  sufficient  to  condemn  the  exposition 
which  involves  it.  The  same  interpretation  is  substantially  proposed  by 
Ewald,  but  more  briefly  and  obscurely,  and  with  his  usual  omission  of  all 
reference  to  other  writers,  which  leaves  it  doubtful  whether  he  derived  it 
from  Luzzatto,  or  arrived  at  it  by  an  independent  process.  Enough  has 
now  been  said  to  show  that  the  most  natural  interpretation  of  the  passage  is 
the  common  one  which  makes  it  a  prophecy  of  moral  and  spiritual  conquests, 
to  be  wrought  by  the  church  over  the  nations,  and,  as  one  illustrious  exam- 
ple, by  the  Jews'  religion  over  the  heathenism  of  many  countries,  not 
excepting  the  literal  Ethiopia,  as  we  learn  from  Acts  8:  27. 

V.  15.  Verily  thou  art  a  God  hiding  thyself,  oh  God  of  Israel,  the 
Savioiir !  The  abrupt  transition  here  has  much  perplexed  interpreters. 
Vltringa  efTects  nothing  by  his  favourite  and  far-fetched  supposition  of  a 
responsive  choir  or  chorus.  Ewald  and  Luzzatto  suppose  the  words  of  the 
Egyptian  captives  to  be  still  continued.  It  is  fav  mure  natural  to  take  the 
verse  as  an  apostrophe,  expressive  of  the  Prophet's  own  strong  feelings  in 
contrasting  what  God  had  done  and  would  yet  do,  the  darkness  of  the  present 
with  the  brightness  of  the  future.  If  these  things  are  to  be  hereafter,  then 
oh  thou  Saviour  of  thy  people,  thou  art  indeed  a  God  that  hides  himself, 
that  is  to  say,  conceals  his  purposes  of  mercy  under  the  darkness  of  his 
present  dispensations.  Let  it  be  observed,  however,  that  the  same  words, 
which  furnish  a  vehicle  of  personal  emotion  to  the  Prophet,  are  in  fact  a 
formula  of  wider  import,  and  contain  the  statement  of  a  general  truth. 
Ewald  assumes  two  distinct  propositions,  reading  the  last  clause  thus,  the 
God  of  Israel  is  a  Saviour  ;  which  is  perfectly  grammatical  and  agreeable  to 
usage,  but  unnecessary  here  and  undesirable,  because  it  detracts  from  the 
simplicity  and  unity  of  the  construction. 

V.  16.  They  are  ashamed  and  also  confounded  all  of  them  together, 
they  are  gone  into  confusion  (or  atvay  in  confusion) — the  carvers  of  images. 
Unless  we  assume,  without  necessity  or  warrant,  an  abrupt  and  perfectly 
capricious  change  of  subject,  this  verse  must  contain  the  conclusion  of  the 
process  described  in  the  foregoing  context.  We  might  therefore  expect  to 
find  Egypt,  Ethiopia,  and  Seba,  introduced  again  by  name  ;  but  instead  of 
these,  the  sentence  closes  with  a  general  expression,  which  has  already  been 
referred  to  as  a  proof  that  the  war  in  question  is  a  spiritual  war,  and  that 
the  enemies  to  be  subdued  are  not  certain  nations,  in  themselves  considered^, 
but  the  heathen  world,  the  vast  mixed  multitude  who  worship  idols.     These 


120  CHAPTER    X  L  V. 

are  described  as  the  carvers  or  artificers  of  images,  which  strengthens  the 
conclusion  before  drawn,  that  the  smith  and  carpenter  and  cook  and  baker 
and  cultivator  of  rh.  44  :  12-16.  are  one  and  the  same  person,  viz.  the  idol- 
atrous devotee  himself. 

V.  17.  Israel  is  saved  in  Jehovah  (^with)  an  everlasting  salvation  (lite- 
rally, sclvation  of  ages  or  eternities)  ;  ye  shall  not  he  ashamed,  and  ye  shall 
not  be  confounded  for  ever  (literally,  until  the  ages  of  eternity),  or  as  the 
English  Version  has  it,  loorld  ivithout  end.  This  is  the  counterpart  and 
contrast  to  the  threatening  in  tlie  verse  preceding,  upon  which  it  throws 
some  light  by  showing  that  the  shame  and  confusion  which  awaits  the  idol- 
ater is  not  mere  wounded  pride  or  sense  of  disappointment,  but  the  loss  and 
opposite  of  that  salvation  which  is  promised  to  God's  people,  or  in  other 
words,  eternal  perdition.  Israel  is  saved  already,  i.  e.  his  salvation  is 
secured,  not  merely  through  the  Lord  but  in  him,  i.  e.  by  virtue  of  an  inti- 
mate and  vital  union  with  him,  as  genuine  and  living  members  of  his  body. 
The  general  form  of  this  solemn  declaration,  and  the  eternity  again  and 
again  predicated  of  the  salvation  promised,  seem  to  show  that  the  Israel  of  this 
text  and  of  others  like  it,  is  not  the  Jewish  people,  considered  simply  as  an  an- 
cient nation,  but  the  Jewish  people  considered  as  the  church  of  God,  a  body 
which  has  never  ceased  and  never  will  cease  to  exist  and  claim  the  promises. 

V.  18.  For  thus  saith  Jehovah,  the  creator  of  the  heavens — he  is  God 
— the  former  of  the  earth  and  its  mal:er — he  established  it — not  in  vain  (or 
not  to  be  empty)  did  he  create  it — to  dwell  in  (or  to  be  inhabited)  he  formed 
it — I  am  Jehovah,  and  there  is  none  besides.  This  verse  assigns  a  reason 
for  believing  in  the  threatening  and  the  promise  of  the  two  preceding  verses, 
viz.  that  he  who  uttered  them  not  only  made  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  but 
made  them  for  a  certain  purpose,  which  must  be  accomplished.  The  only 
difficulty  of  construction  is  the  question  where  Jehovah's  words  begin,  and 
this  admits  of  several  different  answers.  \\  e  may  read,  Thus  saith  Jeho- 
vah, The  creator  of  the  heavens  is  God ;  in  which  case  the  divine  address 
begins  with  a  formal  statement  of  the  argument  derived  from  the  creation. 
Again,  we  may  read.  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  The  creator  of  the  heavens  is  the 
God  who  formed  the  earth.  This  is  Vitringa's  explanation  of  the  verse, 
which  he  regards  as  a  denial  of  the  doctrine  that  the  heavens  and  the  earth 
derive  their  origin  from  different  creators.  But  most  interpreters  suppose 
the  beginning  of  Jehovah's  own  words  lo  be  marked  by  the  introduction  of 
the  pronoun  of  the  first  })erson,  /  am  Jehovah  and  there  is  no  other.  All 
that  precedes  is  then  to  be  regarded  as  a  description  of  the  speaker,  includ- 
ing two  parenthetical  propositions,  each  beginning  with  the  pronoun  N*in  : 
the  creator  of  the  heavens  Qie  is  God),  the  former  of  the  earth  and  its 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  V.  121 

maker  (he  established  it). — Some  understand  f^J^'is  to  mean  prepared  (or 
fitted)  it,  i.  e.  for  man  to  dwell  in.  But  the  other  sense  is  favoured  by  the 
predominant  usage  of  the  verb  and  by  the  analogy  of  Ps.  119:90.  The 
common  version  of  the  next  clause,  he  created  it  not  in  vain,  is  admissible, 
but  less  expressive  than  the  more  specific  rendering,  he  created  it  not  (to  be) 
a  waste  (or  empty).  Grotius  understands  by  ]"l^^  the  Holy  Land,  and  by 
the  whole  clause  that  God  would  not  let  it  remain  uninhabited.  But  the 
antithesis  with  heavens  makes  the  wider  sense  more  natural,  in  which  the 
more  restricted  one,  as  Hitzig  has  suggested,  may  be  comprehended.  The 
earth,  and  the  Holy  Land  as  part  of  it,  was  made  to  be  inhabited,  not  empty. 
— Vitringa's  distinctions  between  making,  forming,  and  creating,  though 
ingenious,  are  no  more  natural  or  necessary  here  than  in  ch.  43 :  7.  (See 
above,  p.  75.)  In  the  last  clause  Jehovah  is  employed  as  a  descriptive 
title,  and  is  really  equivalent  to  ?x  ,  which  the  Prophet  uses  in  a  similar  con- 
nexion in  V.  22  below. 

V.  19.  JS'ot  in  secret  have  I  spoken,  in  a  dark  place  of  the  earth  (or  in 
a  place,  to  wit,  a  land  of  darkness).  1  have  not  said  to  the  seed  of  Jacob, 
In  vain  seek  ye  me.  I  (am)  Jehovah,  speaking  truth,  declaring  rectitudes 
(or  right  things).  The  doctrine  of  the  preceding  verse  is  no  new  revela- 
tion, but  one  long  ago  and  universally  made  known.  Vitringa,  Lowth, 
Ewald,  and  Umbreit  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  mysterious  and  doubtful 
responses  of  the  heathen  oracles.  The  objections  of  Gesenius  are  of  no 
more  weight  than  in  vs.  1,  2,  3,  the  analogy  of  which  places  makes  it  not 
improbable  that  such  an  allusion  to  the  oracles  is  couched  under  the  general 
terms  of  the  verse  before  us. — Of  the  next  clause  there  are  several  distinct 
interpretations.  The  oldest  and  most  common  makes  it  mean  that  God  had 
not  required  the  people  to  consult  him  in  relation  to  futurity  without  obtaining 
satisfactory  responses.  According  to  Hitzig,  he  bad  not  required  them  to 
seek  him  (i.  e.  serve  or  worship  him)  for  nothing,  or  without  reward.  J.  D. 
Michaelis  and  Luzzatto  give  a  local  sense  to  'n'n,  in  the  ivilderness,  which 
Hendewerk  explains  as  equivalent  to  land  of  darkness,  both  denoting  the 
heathen  world,  in  which  Jehovah  had  not  taught  his  people  to  seek  him  or 
expect  responses  from  him. — Lowth  gives  c^'i'.U'ija  the  specific  sense  o^  direct 
answers,  as  opposed  to  the  equivocal  responses  of  the  oracles  ;  but  this  is 
hardly  justified  by  usage,  which  requires  both  this  word  and  the  parallel 
expression  to  be  here  taken  in  the  sense  o[  truth. 

V.  20.  Gather  yourselves  and  come,  draw  near  together  ye  escaped  of 
the  nations.  They  know  not,  those  carrying  the  wood,  their  graven  image, 
and  praying  to  a  God  (ivho)  cannot  save.  In  the  first  clause  the  idolaters 
are  addressed  directly  ;  in  the  second  they  arc  spoken  of  again  in  the  third 


122  CHAPTERXLV. 

person.  The  challenge  or  summons  at  the  beginning  is  precisely  similar  to 
that  in  ch.  41  :  21  and  43  :  9.  Escaped  of  (he  nations  has  been  variously 
explained  to  mean  the  Jews  who  had  escaped  from  the  oppression  of  the 
gentiles,  and  the  gentiles  who  had  escaped  from  the  dominion  of  idolatry. 
But  these  last  would  scarcely  have  been  summoned  to  a  contest.  On  the 
whole,  it  seems  most  natural  to  understand  the  nations  who  survived  the 
judgments  sent  by  God  upon  them.  The  Hebrew  phrase  is  in  itself  ambi- 
guous, the  noun  added  to  "^'^"'^s  sometimes  denoting  the  whole  body  out  of 
which  a  remnant  has  escaped,  sometimes  the  power  from  which  they  are 
delivered.  (Compare  Judg.  12  :  4.  Ez.  6:9.  7:16.  Ob.  11,  with  Jer. 
45  :  23.  Ez.  6  :  8.)  The  predominant  usage  and  the  context  here  decide 
in  favour  of  the  first  interpretation.  Gesenius  and  Luzzatto  both  apply  the 
phrase  to  the  conquests  of  Cyrus,  but  in  contrary  senses.  The  first  regards 
it  as  describing  those  whom  he  should  spare,  the  other  those  whom  he 
should  conquer,  and  who  are  exhibited  as  fleeing  with  their  idols  on  their 
shoulders.  But  the  explanation  which  agrees  best  with  the  whole  con- 
nexion is  the  one  that  supposes  the  idolaters  still  left  (i.  e.  neither  converted 
nor  destroyed)  to  be  the  object  of  address.  If  there  are  any  still  absurd 
enough  to  carry  about  a  wooden  god  and  pray  to  one  who  cannot  save,  let 
them  assemble  and  draw  near. —  They  do  not  Jcnoiv  is  commonly  explained 
to  mean  they  have  no  knowledge  ;  but  it  is  more  accordant  with  the  usage 
of  the  language  to  supply  a  specific  object.  They  do  not  know  it,  or,  they 
do  not  know  what  they  are  doing,  they  are  not  conscious  of  their  own 
impiety  and  folly. — The  verse  contains  two  indirect  reflections  on  the  idols, 
first,  that  they  are  wooden,  then,  that  they  are  lifeless  and  dependent  on 
their  worshippers  for  locomotion. 

V.  21.  Sring  forward  and  bring  near !  Yea,  let  them  consult  together. 
Who  has  caused,  this  to  be  heard  of  old,  since  then  declared  it?  Have  not 
1  Jehovah  1  and  there  is  no  other  God  besides  me ;  a  7-ighteous  and  a  saving 
God,  there  is  Jione  besides  me.  The  object  of  the  verbs  in  the  first  clause, 
according  to  Vitringa,  is  your  cause  or  your  arguments,  as  in  ch.  41  :  21. 
This,  which  Gesenius  is  pleased  to  regard  as  an  ignorant  blunder  of  his  great 
predecessor,  has  nevertheless  commended  itself  to  the  judgment  of  most 
later  writers.  Gesenius  himself  explains  the  first  clause  as  meaning  pro- 
claim  it  and  bring  them  near  (i.  e.  the  heathen),  without  explaining  what 
is  to  be  proclaimed  or  by  whom.  According  to  Vitringa's  exposition,  the 
idolaters  are  called  upon  to  state  their  case  and  to  defend  it. — The  change 
of  person  in  the  next  clause  implies  that  they  are  unable  or  unwilling  to 
accept  the  challenge,  or  at  least  in  doubt  and  hesitation  with  respect  to  it. 
They  are  therefore  invited  to  deliberate  together,  or,  as  some  understand  it, 
to  take  counsel  of  those  wiser  than  themselves.     Instead  of  waiting  longer 


CHAPTERXLV.  123 

for  their  plea,  however,  he  presents  his  own,  in  the  common  form  of  an 
interrogation,  asking  who  except  himself  had  given  evidence  of  prescience 
by  explicitly  foretelling  events  still  far  distant,  and  of  saving  power  by 
delivering  his  people  from  calamity  and  bondage. — txt2  ,  although  it  strictly 
has  relation  to  a  determinate  past  time,  seems  here  to  be  employed  inde6- 
nitely  as  an  equivalent  to  C'!!I?"2  . — Have  not  I  Jehovah,  and  there  is  no 
other  God  besides  me  ?  is  a  Hebrew  idiom  equivalent  to  the  English  question. 
Have  not  I,  besides  whom  there  is  no  other  God.  1 

V.  -2'2.  Tarn  unto  me  and  be  saved  all  ye  ends  of  the  earth,  for  I  am 
God  and  there  is  none  besides.  From  the  preceding  declarations  it  might 
seem  to  follow  that  the  gentile  world  had  nothing  to  expect  but  the  per- 
dition threatened  in  v.  15.  But  now  the  Prophet  brings  to  view  a  gracious 
alternative,  inviting  them  to  choose  between  destruction  and  submission,  and 
showing  that  the  drift  of  the  foregoing  argument  was  not  to  drive  the  heathen 
to  despair,  but  to  shut  them  up  to  the  necessity  of  seeking  safety  in  the 
favour  of  the  one  true  God,  whose  exclusive  deity  is  expressly  made  the 
ground  of  the  exhortation. — ^5Q  does  not  correspond  exactly  to  the  English 
Jool:,  but  denotes  the  act  of  turning  round  in  order  to  look  in  a  different 
direction.  The  text  therefore  bears  a  strong  analogy  to  those  in  which  the 
heathen  when  enlightened  are  described  as  turning  from  their  idols  unto 
God.  (See  1  Thess.  I  :  9.  Acts  14  :  15.  15  :  19.)— TAc  ends  of  the  earth 
is  a  phrase  inclusive  of  all  nations,  and  is  frequently  employed  in  reference 
to  the  conversion  of  the  gentiles.  (See  Ps.  22  :  28.  72:  8.  Zech.  9  :  10.) 
De  Wette's  version,  let  yourselves  be  saved,  appears  to  be  a  needless  refine- 
ment on  the  simple  meaning  of  the  passive. — The  question  whether  Christ 
is  to  be  regarded  as  the  speaker  in  this  passage,  is  of  little  exegetical  impor- 
tance. To  us,  who  know  that  it  is  only  through  him  that  the  Father  saves,  this 
supposition  appears  altogether  natural  ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  any  such 
impression  would  be  made  or  was  intended  to  be  made  upon  an  ancient  reader. 

V.  23.  By  myself  I  have  sworn;  the  word  is  gone  out  of  a  mouth  of 
righteousness,  and  shall  not  return,  that  unto  me  shall  boiv  every  Jcnee,  shall 
swear  every  tongue.  The  form  of  the  divine  oath  elsewhere  used  is  by  my 
life  or  as  I  live.  (Num.  14  :  21,  28.  Deut.  32  :  40.)  Hence  Paul  in  his 
quotation  of  this  text  (Roin.  14  :  11)  uses  the  formula,  Zco  fyoi},  which  may 
be  rej^arded  as  an  accurate  paraphrase,  though  not  as  a  rigorous  translation. 
— The  construction  of  the  words  "i^^  ^7^1^  has  perplexed  interpreters. 
Jerome  arbitrarily  transposes  them,  and  translates  the  phrase  as  if  it  were 
n;:'is  i^"!  word  of  righteousness.  Rosenmiiller  gains  the  same  end  by  sup- 
posing an  unusual  combination  righteousness-word,  like  P^.^.'J^*:?  in  Ps. 
45  :  5.     Most  of  the  modern  writers  make  ^p^'}^  the  subject  of  the  verb  X5i", 


124  C  H  AP  T  ER    XL  V. 

notwiihstandinfi;  the  diversity  of  gender,  and  regard  i<5"  as  equivalent  to 
N3  "I'i.s  .  Truth  has  gone  out  of  my  mouthy  a  ivord  ivhich  shall  not  return. 
The  simplest  construction,  although  none  of  the  later  writers  seem  to  have 
adopted  it,  is  that  proposed  by  J.  D.  INIichaelis,  who  regards  "^e  as  the  con- 
struct form  of  fiQ  without  a  suflix,  and  ripj-iji  as  a  genitive  dependent  on  it, 
the  mouth  of  righteousness  or  truth  (aus  dem  untriigUchen  Munde). — A 
word,  i.  e.  a  promise  or  a  prophecy,  is  said  in  Hebrew  to  return  when  it  is 
cancelled  or  recalled.  (See  Isaiah  55  :  11.)  The  kneeling  and  swearing 
in  the  last  clause  arc  acts  of  homage,  fealty,  or  allegiance,  which  usually 
went  together  (1  Kings  19  :  IS)  and  involved  a  solemn  recognition  of  the 
sovereignty  of  him  to  whom  they  were  tendered.  This  verse  affords  a  clear 
illustration  of  the  difference  between  the  act  of  swearing  to  and  swearing  by 
another.  (Compare  ch.  19  :  18,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  357.) — 
This  text  is  twice  applied  by  Paul  to  Christ  (Rom.  14  :  11.  Phil.  2  :  10), 
in  proof  of  his  regal  and  judicial  sovereignty.  It  does  not  necessarily  predict 
that  all  shall  be  converted  to  him,  since  the  terms  are  such  as  to  include 
both  a  voluntary  and  a  compulsory  submission,  and  in  one  of  these  ways  all 
without  exception  shall  yet  recognise  him  as  their  rigiitful  sovereign. 

V.  24.  Only  in  Jehovah  have  I,  says  he,  righteousness  arid  strength  ; 
unto  him  shall  he  come,  and  all  that  were  incensed  (or  injlamcd)  at  him 
shall  he  ashamed.  Joseph  Kimchi  takes  the  first  words  as  an  oath.  Yes  by 
Jehovah!  David  Kimchi  gives  the  "x  its  proper  meaning,  and  connects  the 
clause  with  the  last  words  of  the  foregoing  verse. — Every  tongue  shall  swear 
(but)  only  by  Jehovah.  Most  interpreters  suppose  a  sentence  to  begin  with 
this  verse,  and  t^J-T^a  to  mean  in  Jehovah.  They  differ  very  much  among 
themselves,  however,  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  words  "i^x  "'^  .  Vitringa, 
Ewald,  and  some  others,  render  the  phrase  said  to  me,  but  without  satisflic- 
torily  showing  its  relation  to  the  context.  The  most  usual  construction 
is,  one  says  of  me,  which  is  grammatical  but  seems  to  make  the  clause 
unmeaning  or  at  least  superfluous.  Perhaps  the  best  construction  is  De 
Dieu's,  who  insulates  "I'sx  and  understands  it  to  mean  says  one  or  says  he, 
while  he  connects  the  following  words  with  ^b ,  as  meaning  are  to  me,  the 
only  Hebrew  phrase  corresponding  to  /  have.  In  either  case  the  general 
meaning  evidently  is  that  God  alone  can  justify  or  give  protection. 
Vitringa's  explanation  of  VJ  as  meaning  grace  is  as  groundless  as  the 
similar  translation  of  n^^'^s  by  the  modern  Germans. — The  masoretic  inter- 
punction  refers  the  singular  verb  it'ia'i  and  the  plural  ^en;;  to  the  same 
subject,  namely,  that  which  follows.  But  the  difierence  of  number  seems 
designed  to  indicate  a  difference  of  subject,  corresponding  to  the  kinds  of 
submission  hinted  at  in  v.  23.  The  singular  Nia;  may  naturally  have  a 
common  subject  with   the  singular  ^'^x ,  viz.  the  '  every  one '  who  should 


CHAPTERXLVI.  J25 

eventually  bow  the  knee  and  swear  allegiance  to  Jehovah,  while  the  plural 
ras'^  may  be  regularly  construed  with  the  plural  Q'^'^t!',?  •  Jarchi  explains 
the  whole  of  the  last  clause  as  describing  the  repentance  of  Jehovah's 
enemies  ;  but  this  is  really  the  meaning  only  of  xi^^  T'"!^ ,  while  the  rest 
describes  the  final  and  desperate  confusion  of  incorrigible  sinners,  as  in  v.  16. 
On  the  phrase  Kin^  i^iy  compare  ch.  19  :  22,  and  on  in  a-nna  ch.  41  :  22. 
and  Cant.  1  :  6. 

V.  25.  In  Jehovah  shall  he  justified  and  boast  themselves  (pv  glory)  oil 
the  seed  of  Israel.  This  closing  promise  is  restricted  by  Jarchi,  in  the 
genuine  spirit  of  rabbinism,  to  the  literal  or  natural  descendants  of  Jacob  ; 
but  this  is  less  surprising  when  we  know  that  he  actually  violates  the  syntax 
of  the  preceding  verse  in  order  to  bring  T(X  and  "'^  together  in  the  sense  of 
onlif  to  me,  the  speaker  being  Israel  !  So  far  is  this  from  being  the  correct 
interpretation  of  the  verse,  that  it  is  really  intended  to  wind  up  the  previous 
addresses  to  the  gentiles  with  a  solemn  declaration  of  their  true  relation  to 
the  chosen  people,  as  composed  of  those  who  really  believed  and  feared 
God,  whether  Jews  or  gentiles.  This  principle  was  recognised  in  every 
admission  of  a  proselyte  to  the  communion  of  the  ancient  church,  and  at  the 
change  of  dispensations  it  is  clearly  and  repeatedly  asserted  as  a  funda- 
mental law  of  Christ's  kingdom  under  every  variety  of  form.  (See  Rom. 
10  :  12.  Gal.  3  :  28,  29.  Col.  3:11.) 


CHAPTER    XLVI. 


Interpreters  are  strangely  divided  in  opinion  as  to  the  connexion  of 
this  chapter  with  the  context.  The  arbitrary  and  precarious  nature  of  their 
judgments  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact,  that  Ewald  separates  the  first  two 
verses  from  the  body  of  the  chapter  and  connects  them  with  the  one  before 
it,  while  Hendewerk  on  the  other  hand  commences  a  new  "  cycle "  with 
the  first  verse  of  this  chapter,  and  Knobel  dogmatically  represents  it  as  an 
isolated  composition,  unconnected  either  with  what  goes  before  or  follows. 
Even  the  older  writers,  who  maintain  the  continuity  of  the  discourse,  appear 
to  look  upon  the  order  of  its  parts  as  being  not  so  much  an  organic  articu- 
lation as  a  mere  mechanical  juxtaposition.  They  are  therefore  obliged  to 
assume  abrupt  transitions,  which,  instead  of  explaining  any  thing  else,  need 
to  be  explained  themselves. 


I OG  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  V  I . 

All  iliis  confusion  is  the  fiuit  of  iho  erroneous  exegetical  hypothesis,  that 
the  main  subject  and  occasion  of  these  later  prophecies  is  the  Babylonish 
exile  and  the  liberation  from  it,  and  liiat  with  these  the  other  topics  must  be 
violently  brought  into  connexion  by  assuming  a  sufficiency  of  types  and 
double  senses,  or  by  charging  the  whqje  discourse  with  incoherence.  Equally 
false,  hut  far  less  extensive  in  its  iuHuence.  is  the  assumption  that  the  whole 
relates  to  Christ  and  to  the  new  dispensation,  so  that  even  what  is  said  o. 
Babylon  and  Cyrus  must  be  metaphorically  understood.  Common  to  both 
hypotheses  is  the  arbitrary  and  exclusive  application  of  the  most  compre- 
hensive language  to  a  part  of  what  it  really  expresses,  and  a  distorted  view 
of  the  Prophet's  themes  considered  in  their  mutual  relations  and  connexions. 
The  whole  becomes  perspicuous,  continuous,  and  orderly,  as  soon  as  we 
admit  what  has  been  already  proved  to  be  the  true  hypothesis,  viz.  that  the 
great  theme  of  these  prophecies  is  God's  designs  and  dealings  with  the 
church  and  with  the  world,  and  that  the  specific  predictions  which  are  intro- 
duced are  introduced  as  parts  or  as  illustrations  of  this  one  great  argument. 
By  thus  reversing  the  preposterous  relation  of  the  principal  elements  of  the 
discourse,  and  restoring  each  to  its  legitimate  position,  the  connexion  becomes 
clear  and  the  arrangement  easy. 

In  confirmation  of  the  general  threats  and  promises  with  which  eh.  xlv. 
is  wound  up,  the  Prophet  now  exhibits  the  particular  case  of  the  Baby- 
lonian idols,  as  a  single  instance  chosen  from  the  whole  range  of  past  and 
future  history.  They  are  described  as  fallen  and  gone  into  captivity,  wholly 
unable  to  protect  their  worshippers  or  save  themselves,  vs.  I,  2.  With  these 
he  then  contrasts  Jehovah's  constant  care  of  Israel  in  time  past  and  in  time 
to  come,  vs.  3,  4.  The  contrast  is  carried  out  by  another  description  of 
the  origin  and  impotence  of  idols,  vs.  5-7,  and  another  assertion  of  Jehovah's 
sole  divinity,  as  proved  by  his  knowledge  and  control  of  the  future,  and  by 
the  raising  up  of  Cyrus  in  particular,  vs.  8-11.  This  brings  him  back  to 
the  same  solemn  warning  of  a[)proaching  judgments,  and  the  same  alter- 
native of  life  or  death,  with  which  the  foregoing  chapter  closes,  vs.  12,  13. 

V.  1.  Bel  is  bowed  down,  Ncho  stooping  ;  their  images  ore  (consigned^ 
to  the  beasts  and  to  the  cattle.  Your  burdens  are  packed  up  (as)  a  load  to 
the  weary  (^beast).  The  connexion  with  what  goes  before  may  be  indicated 
thus  :  see  for  example  the  fate  of  the  Babylonian  idols.  Of  these  two  are 
mentioned,  either  as  arbitrary  samples,  or  as  chief  divinities.  To  these 
names,  or  rather  to  the  subject  of  Babylonian  mythology,  Gesenius  devotes 
an  excursus  or  appendix  of  thirty  pages,  the  results  of  which  are  given  in 
his  Thesaurus  and  Lexicon.  He  connects  Bel  etymologically  with  the 
Hebrew  '??,  and  Nebo  with  x::;  (J^'^^j),  the  two  corresponding  to  the  Zeus 
and  Hermes  of  the  Greek  mythology,  or  rather  to  the  planets  Jupiter  and 


CHAPTERXLVI.  127 

Mercury.  The  dignity  of  these  two  imaginary  deities  among  the  Baby- 
lonians may  be  learned  from  the  extent  to  which  these  names  enter  into  the 
composition  of  the  names  of  men,  both  in  sacred  and  profane  history.  Such 
are  Belshazzar,  Belieshazzar,  Belesys,  Nebuchadnezzar,  Nebuzaradan, 
Nabopolassar,  Nabonned,  etc.  Beyond  tliis  nothing  more  is  needed  for 
the  right  interpretation  of  the  passage,  where  the  names  are  simply  used  to 
represent  the  Babylonian  gods  collectively. — The  verb  C^lp  occurs  only 
here.  The  Septuagint  renders  the  two,  fallen  and  broken;  the  Vulgate 
gives  the  latter  sense  to  both.  But  v^O  is  the  common  term  for  stooping, 
bowing,  especially  in  death  (Judges  5  :  27.  2  Kings  9  :  24.  Ps.  20  :  9)  : 
and  that  the  other  is  substantially  synonymous,  may  be  inferred  not  only 
from  the  parallelism,  but  from  the  analogy  of  the  derivative  noun  o^ijr  ,  a 
hook,  a  tache,  as  being  curved  or  bent.  Although  not  essential  to  the 
general  meaning,  it  is  best  to  give  the  praeter  and  the  participle  their  dis- 
tinctive sense,  as  meaning  strictly  that  the  one  has  fallen  and  the  other  is 
now  falling,  in  strict  accordance  with  Isaiah's  practice,  in  descriptive  passaues, 
of  hurrying  the  reader  inmcJias  res,  of  which  we  have  already  had  repeated 
instances. — The  pronoun  in  their  images  might  be  supposed  to  refer  to  the 
Babylonians,  though  not  expressly  mentioned  ;  but  as  these  are  immediately 
addressed  in  the  second  person,  it  is  best  to  understand  the  pronoun  as  refer- 
ring to  Bel  and  Nebo,  who,  as  heavenly  bodies  or  imaginary  deities,  are 
then  distinguished  from  the  images  which  represented  them  in  the  vulvar 
worship.  The  suggestion  of  J.  D.  Michaells,  that  there  may  be  an  allusion 
to  some  actual  decay  of  the  metallic  idols  in  the  shrines  of  Babylon  is  incon- 
sistent with  what  follows  in  relation  to  their  going  into  exile. — The  Sep- 
tuagint, the  Targum,  and  Jerome,  seem  to  understand  the  next  clause  as 
meaning  that  their  images  become  beasts,  which  is  scarcely  intelligible. 
Most  writers  follow  Kimchi  and  De  Dieu  in  supplying  a^'o  from  the  other 
clause,  they  are  (a  burden)  to  the  beasts  etc.  But  this  assumes  a  very  harsh 
ellipsis  and  is  wholly  unnecessary,  since  usage  allows  h  rn  to  be  taken  in 
the  sense  of  they  are  to,  i.  e.  they  now  belong  to,  or  are  abandoned  and  con- 
signed to.  The  common  version,  on  the  beasts,  is  too  paraphi'astical.  Kimchi 
supposes  n'jn  and  ^^n2  to  be  used  in  their  distinctive  sense  of  wild  beasts 
and  domesticated  cattle,  understanding  by  the  latter  common  beasts  of 
burden,  by  the  former  camels,  elephants,  etc.  J.  D.  Michaelis  imagines 
that  there  rnay  be  an  allusion  to  the  mythological  use  of  wild  beasts,  such 
as  the  lions  of  Cybele  etc.  Most  interpreters  regard  the  words  as  simple 
equivalents  or  at  the  most  as  merely  distinguishing  oxen,  asses,  mules,  etc. 
from  camels,  dromedaries,  and  perhaps  horses. — rxcs  is  properly  a  passive 
participle  used  as  a  noun  and  meaning  your  carried  things  (in  old  English, 
great  image  of  Bel  at  Babylon  was  not  destroyed  until  the  lime  of  Xerxes, 


123  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  VI. 

carriages),  the  things  which  you  have  been  accustomed  to  carry  in  pro- 
cessions or  from  place  to  place,  but  which  are  now  to  be  carried  in  a  very 
different  manner,  on  the  backs  of  animals,  as  spoil  or  captives.  rit:^-2'J 
properly  means  lifted  up  in  order  to  be  carried,  but  may  here  be  rendered 
jmcked  or  loaded,  though  this  last  word  is  ambiguous. — x'^a*?  does  not  neces- 
sarily denote  a  hcavij  load,  but  simply  that  they  are  a  load,  i.  e.  something 
to  be  carried.  The  idea  of  weight  is  suggested  by  the  following  word, 
which  the  Vulgate  renders  as  an  abstract  meaning  weariness  (usque  ad  lassi- 
iudinem),  but  which  is  properly  a  feminine  adjective  agreeing  with  n*n  or 
n^na  understood. 

V.  2.  They  stoop,  they  how  together ;  they  cannot  save  the  load ; 
themselves  are  gone  into  captivity.  The  first  clause  may  mean  that  they 
are  now  both  fallen  ;  or  together  may  have  reference  to  the  other  gods  of 
Babylon,  so  as  to  mean  that  not  only  Bel  and  Nebo  but  all  the  rest  are 
fallen. — The  last  member  of  the  first  clause  has  been  variously  explained. 
Gesenius  is  disposed  to  make  5*'*^^  an  abstract  meaning  the  carrying,  a 
sense  not  worth  obtaining  by  so  harsh  a  supposition.  The  Vulgate  arbitrarily 
reverses  the  meaning,  and  instead  of  the  thing  borne  understands  the  bearer 
(non  potuerunt  sahare  portantem).  Of  those  who  adhere  to  the  strict  sense, 
load  or  burden,  some  understand  by  it  the  Babylonian  state  or  empire,  which 
oufrht  to  have  been  borne  or  sustained  by  its  tutelary  gods.  But  the  most 
satisfactory  interpretation  is  the  one  which  gives  the  word  the  same  sense  as 
in  V.  1,  and  applies  it  to  the  images  with  which  the  beasts  were  charged  or 
laden.  These  are  then  to  be  considered  as  distinguished  by  the  writer  from 
the  fods  which  they  represented.  Bel  and  Nebo  are  unable  to  rescue  their 
own  imac^es.  This  agrees  well  with  the  remainder  of  the  sentence,  them- 
selves are  gone  (or  literally  their  self  is  gone)  into  captivity.  This  is  the 
only  way  in  which  the  reflexive  pronoun  could  be  made  emphatic  here 
without  an  awkward  circumlocution.  Tliere  is  no  need,  therefore,  of  ex- 
plaining tDtljSD  to  mean  their  soul,  i.  e.  the  animating  principle  or  spirit  by 
which  the  image  was  supposed  to  be  inhabited  ;  much  less  their  desire,  i.  e. 
the  darling  idols  of  the  heathen,  like  nn-'nsian  in  ch.  44  :  9.  The  antithesis 
is  really  between  the  material  images  of  Bel  and  Nebo  and  themselves, 
so  far  as  they  had  any  real  existence.  The  whole  god,  soul  and  body,  all 
that  there  was  of  him,  was  gone  into  captivity.  The  idea  of  the  conquest 
and  captivity  of  tutelary  gods  was  common  in  the  ancient  east,  and  is 
alluded  to,  besides  this  place,  in  Jer.  48:7.  49  :  3.  Hos.  10:  5,  6.  Dan. 
11  :  8,  to  which  may  be  added  1  Sam.  5  :  1. — Whether  the  Prophet  here 
refers  to  an  actual  event  or  an  ideal  one,  and  how  the  former  supposition 
may  be  reconciled  with  the  statement  of  Herodotus  and  Diodorus,  that  the 


CHAPTERXLVl.  129 

are  questions  growing  out  of  the  erroneous  supposition  that  the  passage  has 
exclusive  reference  to  the  conquest  by  Cyrus  ;  whereas  it  may  include  the 
whole  series  of  events  which  resulted  in  the  final  downfal  of  the  Babylonian 
idol  worship.      (See  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  242.) 

V.  3.  Hearlcen  unto  vie,  oh  house  of  Jacob,  and  all  the  remnant  of  the 
house  of  Israel,  those  borne  from  the  belli/,  those  carried  from  the  ivomb.  By 
the  remnant  of  the  house  of  Israel  Kimchi  understands  the  remains  of  the 
ten  tribes  who  were  in  exile  ;  but  this  is  a  gratuitous  restriction  of  the 
meaning.  The  participles  rendered  borne  and  carried  are  the  masculine 
forms  of  those  used  in  v.  1.  This  repetition,  analogous  to  that  in  ch. 
42  :  2;  3,  is  intended  to  suggest  a  contrast  between  the  failure  of  tlie  idols  to 
protect  their  worshippers  and  God's  incessant  care  of  his  own  people.  The 
gods  of  the  heathen  had  to  be  borne  by  them  ;  but  Jehovah  was  himself  the 
bearer  of  his  followers.  And  this  was  no  new  thing,  but  coeval  with  their 
national  existence.  The  specific  reference  to  Egypt  or  the  exodus  is  no 
more  necessary  here  than  in  ch.  44  :  2,  24.  48:  8.  The  carrying  meant  is 
that  of  children  by  the  nurse  or  parent.  The  same  comparison  is  frequent 
elsewhere.  (See  Num.  1 1  :  12.  Deut.  1:31.  Ex.  19  :  4.  Is.  63  :  9,  and 
corapare  Deut.  32  :  II,  12.  Hos.  11:3.  Is.  40  :  11.) — For  belli/  and  woinb 
Noyes,  by  way  of  euphemistic  variation,  substitutes  birth  and  earliest  breath. 
— "jn  ''ixi  is  identical  with  ",:^2'3  ch.  44  :  24.  The  same  form  of  the  particle 
occurs  in  Job  20 :  4.  and  Ps.  44  :  19. 

V.  4.  The  figure  of  an  infant  and  its  nurse  was  not  sufficient  to  express 
the  whole  extent  of  God's  fidelity  and  tenderness  to  Israel.  The  first  of 
these  relations  is  necessarily  restricted  to  the  earliest  period  of  life,  but  God's 
protection  is  continued  without  limit.  And  to  old  age  I  am  He  (i.  e.  the 
same),  and  to  gray  hair  I  will  bear  (you)  ;  I  have  done  it  and  I  will  carry 
and  I  will  bear  and  save  (you).  Hitzig  supposes  this  to  mean  that  Israel 
was  already  old,  as  in  ch.  47  :  6  ;  but  others  much  more  ])robably  refer  it  to 
the  future,  and  regard  the  expressions  as  indefinite.  As  I  iiave  done  in  time 
past,  so  I  will  do  hereafter.  The  general  analogy  between  the  life  of 
individuals  and  that  of  nations  is  sufficiently  obvious,  and  is  finely  expressed 
by  Florus  in  his  division  of  the  Roman  History  into  the  periods  of  child- 
hood, youth,  manhood,  and  old  age.  But  Vitringa  mars  the  beautiful 
analogy  when  he  undertakes  to  measure  off  the  periods  in  the  history  of 
Israel  from  his  birth  in  Egypt,  through  his  infancy  in  the  desert,  his  youth 
under  tbe  Judges,  his  manhood  until  Jotham,  his  old  age  until  Alexander, 
and  his  gray  hairs  or  extreme  old  age  beyond  that  period, — The  reference 
of  these  terms  to  God  himself  as  the  Ancient  of  Days  (Dan.  7  :  9),  is  too 
absurd  to  need  refutation  or  admit  of  it. 

9 


130  C  11  A  P  T  E  R    XL  V  I. 

V.  5.  To  xcJwm  ivill  ye  liken  me  and  equal  and  compare  me,  that  we 
may  be  (literally,  and  we  shall  be)  like  ?  This  is  an  indirect  conclusion  from 
the  contrast  in  the  foregoing  context.  If  such  be  the  power  of  idols,  and 
such  that  of  Jehovah,  to  whom  will  yc  compare  him  ?  The  form  of 
expression  is  hke  that  in  ch.  40  :  18,  25. 

V.  6.  The  j^rodigals  (or  lavish  ones)  will  weigh  gold  from  the  bag, 
and  silver  with  the  rod  ;  they  will  hire  a  gilder,  and  he  will  make  it  a  god  ; 
they  will  bow  down,  yea  they  loill  fall  prostrate,  cib:  is  commonly  explain- 
ed as  a  participle  in  the  sense  o^  pouring  out  or  lavishing;  but  thus 
understood  it  is  of  difficult  construction.  Vitringa  resolves  it  into  d'^^J  en  ; 
but  this  is  contrary  to  usage.  If  we  make  it  agree  with  the  subject  of  the 
verbs  in  v.  5  (i/e  it7to  jwwr  om^  etc.),  we  must  suppose  an  abrupt  change 
of  person  in  the  next  clause.  The  first  construction  above  given  is  the  one 
proposed  by  Schmidius,  who  makes  ^'^VJ^!  the  subject  of  the  verb  ^Vpiii"!  , 
We  may  then  explain  0^313  either  as  meaning  taken  out  of  the  ])urse,  or  in 
reference  to  the  bag  of  weights,  in  which  sense  it  is  used  in  Deut.  25:  13. 
Mic.  6:11.  ^'rP^  is  properly  a  reed,  then  any  rod  or  bar,  such  as  the  shaft 
of  a  candlestick  (Ex.  25:31).  and  here  the  beam  of  a  balance  or  the 
oraduated  rod  of  a  steelvard. — The  verse  has  reference  to  the  wealthier 
class  of  idol-worshippers. 

V.  7.  They  will  lift  him  on  the  shoulder,  they  will  carry  him,  they  will 
set  him  in  his  place,  and  he  will  stand  (there),  from  his  place  he  will  not 
move  ;  yes,  one  will  cry  to  him,  and  he  ivill  not  answer ;  from  his  distress 
he  will  (or  can)  not  save  him.  The  idol  is  not  only  the  work  of  man's 
hands,  but  entirely  dependent  on  him  for  the  slightest  motion.  No  wonder 
therefore  that  he  cannot  hear  the  prayers  of  his  worshippers,  much  less  grant 
them  the  deliverance  and  protection  which  they  need. 

V.  8.  Remember  this  and  show  yourselves  men  ;  bring  it  home,  ye  apos- 
tates, to  (your)  mind  (or  heart). — By  this  Jarchi  understands  what  follows  ; 
but  it  rather  means  what  goes  before,  viz.  the  proof  just  given  of  the 
impotence  of  idols,  the  worshippers  of  which,  whether  Jews  or  gentiles,  are 
addressed  in  this  verse  as  apostates  or  rebels  against  God.  The  restriction 
of  the  term  to  apostate  Jews  is  perfectly  gratuitous. —  The  verb  ^aitrxnn  is  a 
ana^  hyoutrov  and  admits  of  several  different  explanations.  Joseph  Kimchi 
derived  it  from  ^iifire,  and  explained  it  to  mean,  '  be  inflamed  or  reddened' 
i.  e.  blush.  So  the  Vulgate,  confundamini.  The  Targum  and  Jarchi 
understand  it  to  mean  '  fortify  or  strengthen  yourselves,'  and  connect  it  with 
<a^tysi'».,  foundations  (ch.  16:  7).  Bochart  derives  it  from  a:"'J^  a  man,  and 
identifies  it  with   the  uv$QiL,£o{)e  of  1  Cor.  16  :  13.      Vitringa  objects  that 


CHAPTERXLVI.  131 

the  apostates  would  not  be  exhorted  to  fortify  themselves  in  unbelief. 
Hitzig  replies  that  the  clauses  are  addressed  to  different  parties,  which  is 
wholly  arbitrary.  Gesenius  removes  the  objection  by  giving  to  the  verb  the 
sense  of  acting  rationally,  not  like  children  (1  Cor.  14:  20),  or  as  Kimchi 
says,  like  beasts  which  have  neither  judgment  nor  consideration.  Vitringa 
objects  moreover  that  the  form  would  be  TOsii^Nrri;  Hitzig  more  plausibly, 
that  it  would  be  '"^^'iXrr;  from  the  acknowledged  root  iiiix;  but  there  is  no 
absurdity  in  supposing  that  the  verbal  form  was  derived  from  the  contracted 
aJ'^N  which  is  in  common  use. — As  an  exegetical  monstrosity  it  may  be  stated 

here  that  Paulus  explains  the  Hebrew  word  by  the  Arabic  one  ^j^t  ,  mean- 
ing to  drive  camels  by  the  use  of  the  syllable  is !  is  ! 

V.  9,  10.  Remember  former  things  of  old  (or  from  eternity),  for  I  am 
the  Mighty  and  there  is  no  other,  God  and  there  is  none  like  me,  declaring 
from  the  first  the  last,  and  from  ancient  time  the  things  which  are  not  (yet) 
done  (or  made),  saying,  My  counsel  shall  stand  and  all  my  pleasure  I  icill 
do.  He  calls  upon  them  to  consider  the  proofs  of  his  exclusive  deity, 
afforded  not  only  by  the  nullity  of  all  conflicting  claims,  but  by  the  fact  of 
his  infallible  foreknowledge,  as  attested  by  the  actual  prediction  of  events 
long  before  their  occurrence. — Instead  of  for  some  read  that,  on  the  ground 
that  the  thing  to  be  believed  was  his  divinity  ;  the  former  things  being  cited 
merely  as  the  proofs  of  it. — Declaring  the  last  from  the  first,  or  the  end  from 
the  beginning,  means  declaring  the  whole  series  of  events  included  between 
these  extremes,  n'^'ini*  does  not  strictly  mean  the  end  as  opposed  to  the 
beginning,  but  the  latter  part  of  any  thing  as  opposed  to  the  preceding  part, 
whatever  the  extent  of  either  or  their  relative  proportions.  Hence  it  often 
means  futurity,  both  absolute  and  relative,  without  necessarily  defining  the 
terminus  a  quo  from  which  it  is  to  be  computed. — My  counsel  shall  staiid, 
i.  e.  my  purpose  shall  be  executed.  (See  ch.  7  :  7.  8  :  10.  14  :  24.  44  :  26.) 
All  the  modern  writers  seem  to  be  agreed  in  giving  "5£3n  the  sense  of  my 
will  or  pleasure,  although  not  at  all  more  natural  or  necessary  here  than  in 
ch.  44:  28,  where  it  is  made  a  proof  of  later  date  and  of  a  diction  different 
from  that  of  Isaiah. — All  the  expressions  of  the  ninth  verse  have  occurred 
before  in  different  combinations.  (See  ch.  42  :  14.  43:18.  45:21  etc.) 
According  to  Maurer,  former  things  here  means  former  events,  as  in  ch. 
43  :  18.  48 :  3,  not  former  jpredictions,  as  in  ch.  42  :  9.  43  :  9. 

V.  11.  Calling  from  the  east  a  bird  of  prey,  from  a  land  of  distance 
the  man  of  his  counsel ;  1  have  both  said  and  will  also  bring  it  to  jyass,  I 
have  formed,  (the  plan)  and  ivill  also  do  it.  From  the  general  assertion  of 
his  providence  and  power,  he  now  passes  to  that  specific  proof  of  it  which 
has  so  frequently  been  urged  before,  viz.  the  raising  up  of  Cyrus  ;  but  without 


]  32  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  V  I . 

the  mcniion  of  his  name  in  this  case,  and  with  an  indefiniteness  of  expression 
which  is  perfectly  well  suited  to  the  general  analogy  of  prophecy,  as  well  as 
to  the  views  already  taken   in  the  exposition  of  ch.  44  :  28.      (See  above, 
p.  106.) — Calling  includes   prediction  and  efficiency,  not  only  announcing 
but  calling   into   being.      Most   of  the   modern   writers   give   to  ^s'^i?   here 
the    specific    sense    of  eagle,    sonie    on    account    of    a    supposed    affinity 
between   the    Hebrew   name   and  the  Greek   duroi;,  others   because  of  the 
frequent  similar  allusions  to  the  eagle   elsewhere  (see  Jer.  49  :  22.    Ezek. 
IT  :  2,  3,  12.     Comp.  Isaiah  40  :  31),  others  supposing  a  reference  to  the 
Persian  ensign.     But  the  very  vagueness  of  the  usual  sense  entitles  it  to  the 
preference  for  reasons  just  suggested. — The  point  of  comparison  is  not  mere 
swiftness  or   rapidity  of  conquest   (Hos.  8:1.    Hab.  1  :  8.    Jer.  48  :  40), 
but  rapacity  and   fierceness.     Knobel  arbitrarily  assumes  that  Media  and 
Persia  are  distinctly  and  specifically  meant  by  the  east  and  theyb?*  country^ 
whereas  the  language  is  designedly  indefinite. — Man  of  his  counsel  does  not 
mean  his  counsellor,  as  it  does  in  ch.  40  :  13,  but  either  the  executor  of  his 
purpose,  or  the   agent  himself  purposed  i.  e.  foreordained  by  God.      The 
marginal  reading  [my  counsel)  probably  arose  from  the  seeming  harshness  of 
the  enallage  personae ,   but  this  is  a  figure  much  too  frequent  in  Isaiah  to 
require  elimination   by  a   change  of  text.     It  is  as  if  he  had  said,  /  am  he 
that  calls  the  man  of  his  counsel,  after  which  the  construction  is  continued 
reo-ularly  in  the  first  person. — t^x  denotes  accession,  and  is  sometimes  equiva- 
lent to  aho,  sometimes  to  nay  more.     It  has  here  the  force  o(  not  only  this 
hut  also  that,  or  both  this  and  also  that. — "is';  is  not  here  synonymous  with 
nbi"  as  in  ch.  44  :  2,  but  opposed  to  it,  meaning  to   conceive  or  form  the 
plan  of  any  thing,  as  in  ch.  22  :  11.  37  :  26.  Jer.  18  :  11.  Ps.  94  :  20. 
Is.  37  :  26.     The  antithesis  expressed  is  that  between  design  and  execution. 
— The  feminine  suffix  corresponds  to  our  neuter  pronoun  it,  referring  to  the 
feminine  noun  nas  i.  e.  purpose  or  counsel. 

V.  12.  Hearlcen  to  me,  ye  stout  of  heart,  those  fai-  from  righteousness. 
By  an  easy  and  natural  association,  he  subjoins  to  these  proofs  of  his  own 
divinity,  both  past  and  future,  a  warning  to  those  who  were  unwilling  to 
receive  them.  Strength  of  heart  implies,  though  it  does  not  directly  signify, 
stubbornness  or  obstinacy  and  a  settled  opposition  to  the  will  of  God. 
Because  "I'^ax  is  sometimes  absolutely  used  in  the  sense  of  a  bull  (Ps.  22  :  13. 
50  :  13),  Ilitzig  says  that  it  here  strictly  n)eans  bulls  in  intellect  (^Stiere 
an  Vernunft), — The  same  persons  are  described  as  far  from  righteousness, 
which  some  understand  as  meaning  far  from  rectitude  or  truth,  i.  e.  deceitful, 
insincere.  Others  explain  it  to  mean  those  who  regard  the  exhibition  of 
God's  righteousness  as  still  far  distant.  But  the  only  natural  interpretation 
is  the  one  which  gives  the  words  their  obvious  and  usual  sense,  as  signifying 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    XL  V  I  I.  I33 

those  who  are  not  righteous  before  God,  in  other  words  the  wicked,  the 
words  far  from  expressing  the  degree  of  their  depravity. 

V.  13.  /  have  brought  near  my  righteousness,  it  shall  not  he  far  off; 
and  my  salvation,  it  shall  not  tarry  ;  and  I  will  give  (or  place)  in  Zion  my 
saltation,  to  Israel  my  glory.  Because  righteousness  and  salvation  frequently 
occur  as  parallel  expressions,  most  of  the  modern  German  writers  treat  them 
as  synonymous,  whereas  one  denotes  the  cause  and  the  other  the  effect,  one 
relates  to  God  and  the  other  to  man.  The  sense  in  which  salvation  can  be 
referred  to  the  righteousness  of  God  is  clear  from  ch.  1  :  27.  (See  the 
Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  19.)  The  exhibition  of  God's  ighteousness  consists 
in  the  salvation  of  his  people  and  the  simultaneous  destruction  of  liis  enemies. 
To  these  two  classes  it  was  therefore  at  the  same  time  an  object  of  desire 
and  dread.  The  stout-hearted  mentioned  in  v.  12  were  not  prepared  for  it, 
and,  unless  they  were  changed,  must  perish  when  God's  righteousness  came 
near. — The  last  words  admit  of  two  constructions,  one  of  which  repeats  the 
verb  and  makes  it  govern  the  last  noun  (I  will  give  my  glory  unto  Israel)  ; 
the  other  makes  the  clause  a  supplement  to  what  precedes,  I  will  give  sal- 
vation in  Zion  unto  Israel  (who  is)  my  glory.  In  illustration  of  the  latter, 
see  ch-  44  :  23.  62  :  3.  Jer.  33  :  9.  The  other  construction  has  more  of 
the  parallel  or  balanced  form  which  is  commonly  considered  characteristic 
of  Hebrew  composition.  In  sense  they  ultimately  coincide,  since  Israel 
could  become  Jehovah's  glory  only  by  Jehovah's  glory  being  bestowed 
upon  him. 


CHAPTER    XLVII. 

Here  again  we  meet  with  the  most  discordant  and  unfounded  assump- 
tions, as  to  the  connexion  of  this  chapter  with  the  context,  and  arising  from 
the  same  misapprehension  of  the  general  design  of  the  whole  prophecy. 
Hitzig,  because  he  cannot  make  it  fit  into  an  artificial  system  of  his  own, 
involving  the  hypothesis  of  several  successive  compositions,  corresponding  to 
the  progress  of  events  under  Cyrus,  arbitrarily  describes  it  as  an  insulated 
prophecy,  older  than  those  which  now  precede  it,  and  afterwards  wrought 
into  its  present  place.  In  support  of  this  violent  and  desperate  assumption 
he  appeals  to  the  close  connexion  between  the  last  verse  of  ch.  xlvi.  and 
the  first  of  ch.  xlviii  ;  an  argument  which  might  be  used,  with  equal  plausi- 


134  C  H  AP  T  E  R    XL  VII. 

bility,  to  throw  out  any  portion  of  the  book,  because  throughout  these  later 
prophecies  certain  apostrophes  and  other  formulas  are  constantly  recurring 
at  irregular  intervals.  Hendewerk,  on  the  other  hand,  so  far  from  seeing 
any  want  of  continuity  between  this  chapter  and  the  two  before  and  after  it, 
represents  the  three  as  constituting  a  "cycle"  or  division  of  a  cycle.  But 
even  those  who  hold  a  middle  course  between  these  violent  extremes 
conmiit  the  usual  error  of  inverting  the  legitimate  relation  of  the  topics  to 
each  other,  by  making  the  prediction  of  the  downfal  of  Babylon  the  Pro- 
phet's main  theme,  and  not  a  specific  illustration  of  it.  The  difficulties 
which  this  false  assumption  has  occasioned  with  respect  to  the  arrangement 
of  the  chapter  will  be  seen  below  from  the  interpretation  of  the  fourth  verse. 
Another  undesirable  effect  of  the  same  error  is  the  necessity  imposed  upon 
some  eminent  interpreters,  Vitringa  for  example,  of  superadding  to  their 
exposition  of  the  chapter  an  account  of  what  they  call  its  mystical  sense, 
that  is  to  say,  the  application  of  its  terms  in  the  New  Testament  to  Rome, 
both  Pagan  and  Apostate  (Rev.  xviii).  Such  a  proceeding  may  be  looked 
upon  as  necessary  on  the  supposition  that  the  Babylon  here  threatened  is 
the  great  theme  of  the  prophecy  ;  but  if  it  is  merely  introduced  as  a  remarka- 
ble example  of  God's  dealings  with  his  enemies  and  those  of  his  people,  it  is 
difficult  to  see  why  its  images  and  terms  may  not  be  used  in  other  prophecies 
directed  against  other  objects,  without  compelling  us  to  comprehend  those 
objects  in  the  proper  scope  of  the  original  prediction.  Cowper  has  para- 
phrased the  song  of  Israel  over  the  fallen  king  of  Babylon  in  ch.  xiii,  and 
put  it  in  the  mouth  of  the  Peruvian  Incas  upbraiding  their  Spanish  tyrants. 
If  it  could  now  be  proved  that  Cowper  was  inspired  when  he  wrote  this 
poem,  would  it  follow  that  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  Isaiah  had  reference 
either  literal  or  mystical  to  Pizarro  or  Peru  ?  If  this  would  not  be  a  legiti- 
mate conclusion  in  the  supposed  case,  then  all  the  facts  of  the  real  case 
may  be  sufficiently  accounted  for,  by  simply  assuming  that  the  costume  of 
this  prophecy  was  reproduced  by  inspiration  in  another,  on  a  subject  similar 
but  not  identical  ;  that  this  new  prophecy  is  not  a  repetition  or  an  expla- 
nation but  at  most  an  imitation  of  the  old  one  ;  and  finally  that  what  Vitringa 
calls  the  mystical  sense  of  the  chapter  now  before  us  is  really  the  strict  sense 
of  another  passage,  and  belongs  therefore  not  to  the  interpretation  of  Isaiah 
but  to  that  of  the  Apocalypse.  The  following  seems  to  be  the  true  analysis. 
Having  exemplified  his  general  doctrine,  as  to  God's  ability  and  purpose 
to  do  justice  both  to  friends  and  foes,  by  exhibiting  the  downfal  of  the  Baby- 
lonian idols,  he  now  attains  the  same  end  by  predicting  the  downfal  of  Baby- 
lon itself  and  of  the  state  to  which  it  gave  its  name.  Under  the  figure  of  a 
royal  virgin,  she  is  threatened  with  extreme  degradation  and  exposure, 
vs.  1-3.  Connecting  this  event  with  Israel  and  Israel's  God,  as  the  great 
themes  which  it  was  intended   to  illustrate,  v.  4,  he  predicts  the  fall  of  the 


CHAPTERXLVII.  135 

empire  more  distinctly,  v.  5,  and  assigns  as  a  reason  the  oppression  of  God's 
people,  V.  6,  pride  and  self-confidence,  vs.  7-9,  especially  reliance  upon 
human  wisdom  and  upon  superstitious  arts,  all  which  would  prove  entirely 
insufficient  to  prevent  the  great  catastrophe,  vs.  10-15. 

V.  1.  Come  down!  By  a  beautiful  apostrophe,  the  mighty  power  to 
be  humbled  is  addressed  directly,  and  the  prediction  of  her  humiliation 
clothed  in  the  form  of  a  command  to  exhibit  the  external  signs  of  it. — Sii 
on  the  dust !  This,  which  is  the  literal  translation  of  the  Hebrew  phrase, 
may  be  conformed  to  our  idiom  either  by  substituting  in  for  on,  or  by  under- 
standing "iss  to  denote,  as  it  sometimes  does,  the  solid  ground.  (See  ch. 
2:19,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  35.)  The  act  of  sitting  on  the  ground 
is  elsewhere  mentioned  as  a  customary  sign  of  grief.  (See  ch.  3  :  26. 
Lam.  2  :  !0.  Job  2  :  13.)  But  here  it  is  designed,  chiefly  if  not  exclu- 
sively, to  suggest  the  idea  of  dethronement  which  is  afterwards  expressed 
distinctly.  —  The  next  phrase  is  commonly  explained  to  mean  virgin 
daughter  of  Babel  (i.  e.  BabifJon),  which,  according  to  Gesenius,  is  a 
collective  personification  of  the  inhabitants.  But  as  ri^^ina  ,  notwithstanding 
its  construct  form,  is  really  in  apposition  with  r?  (^virgin  daughter),  so  nn 
may  be  in  apposition  with  ^^^  (daughter  Babel),  and  denote  not  the 
daughter  of  Babylon,  but  Babylon  itself,  personified  as  a  virgin  and  a 
daughter,  in  which  case  the  latter  word  may  have  the  wide  sense  of  the 
French  fille,  and  be  really  synonymous  with  virgin.  (See  ch.  37  :  22,  and 
the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  616.)  But  whatever  may  be  the  primary  import 
of  the  phrase,  it  is  admitted  upon  all  hands  to  be  descriptive  either  of  the 
city  of  Babylon,  or  of  the  Babylonian  state  and  nation.  Whether  that 
power  is  described  as  a  virgin  because  hitherto  unconquered,  is  much  more 
doubtful,  as  this  explanation  seems  to  mar  the  simplicity  of  the  description 
by  confounding  the  sign  with  the  thing  signified. — Sit  to  the  earth  !  i.  e. 
close  to  it,  or  simply  on  it,  as  in  Ps.  9  :  5,  where  the  vague  sense  of  the 
particle  is  determined  by  the  verb  and  noun  with  which  it  stands  connected. 
To  sit  as  to  a  throne  can  only  mean  to  sit  upon  it.  There  is  no  throne. 
Someconnect  this  with  what  goes  before,  in  this  way  :  sii  on  the  earth  without 
a  throne.  But  there  is  no  need  of  departing  from  the  idiomatic  form  of  the 
original,  in  which  these  words  are  a  complete  proposition,  which  may  be 
connected  with  what  goes  before  by  supplying  a  causal  particle  :  'sit  on  the 
earth,  for  you  have  now  no  throne.' — Daughter  of  Chasdim  !  This  last  is 
the  common  Hebrew  name  for  the  Chaldees  or  Chaldeans,  the  race  intro- 
duced by  the  Assyrians,  at  an  early  period,  into  Babylonia.  (See  ch. 
23  :  13,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  411.  Compare  also  what  is  said 
above,  on  ch.  43  :  14.)  If  taken  here  in  this  sense,  it  may  be  understood 
to  signify  the  government  or  the  collective  members  of  this  race.     Rosen- 


136  CII  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  VI  I. 

miiller  applies  it  to  the  city,  and  supposes  it  to  be  so  called  because  built  by 
the  Chaldeans.  But  this  is  equally  at  variance  with  history  and  with  the 
analogy  of  other  cases  where  a  like  explanation  would  be  inadmissible. 
Daughter  of  Chasdim  must  of  course  be  an  analogous  expression  to  the 
parallel  phrase  davghtcr  of  BahcJ,  which  certainly  cannot  mean  a  city  built 
by  Babylon.  Besides  the  strict  use  of  c^'nrs  as  a  plural,  it  is  unequivocally 
used  now  and  then  as  the  name  of  the  country,  analogous  to  c^'^J^ia  which  is  a 
dual.  See  for  example  Jer.  51  :  24,  35,  where  we  read  of  the  inhabitants 
of  Chasdim,  and  Ezek.  16  :  29,  where  it  takes  the  local  or  directive  n.  If 
the  word  be  so  explained  in  this  case,  it  will  make  the  correspondence  of 
the  clauses  still  more  exact. — For  thou  shall  not  add  (or  continue)  to  he 
called,  would  be  the  natural  and  usual  conclusion  of  the  phrase;  instead  of 
which  we  have  here  ihctj  shall  not  call  thee,  wliich  is  common  enough  as 
an  indefinite  expression  equivalent  to  a  passive,  and  onl}'  remarkable  fiom 
its  combination  with  the  preceding  words,  although  the  sense  of  the  whole 
clause  is  quite  obvious.  Thou  shah  not  continue  to  be  called  (or  they  shall  n& 
longer  call  thee)  tender  and  delicate,  i.  e.  they  shall  no  longer  have  occasior^ 
so  to  call  thee,  because  thou  shalt  no  longer  be  so.  The  same  two  epithets 
are  found  in  combination  Deut.  2S  :  54,  from  which  place  it  is  clear  that 
they  are  not  so  much  descriptive  of  voluptuous  and  vicious  habits  as  of  a 
delicate  and  easy  mode  of  life,  such  as  that  of  a  princess  compared  with  that 
of  a  female  slave.  The  testimonies  of  the  ancient  writers  as  to  the  preva- 
lent iniquities  of  Babylon  belong  rather  to  a  subsequent  part  of  the  descrip- 
tion. All  that  is  here  meant  is  that  the  royal  virgin  must  descend  from  the 
throne  to  the  dust,  and  relinquish  the  luxuries  and  comforts  of  her  former 
mode  of  life. 

V.  2.  Take  niill-stones  and  grind  meal!  Even  among^  the  Romans 
this  was  considered  one  of  the  most  servile  occupations.  In  the  east  it  was 
especially  the  work  of  female  slaves.  (Ex.  11:5.  Matth.  24  :  41.) — 
Uncover  (i.e.  lift  up  or  remove)  thy  veil!  One  of  the  Arabian  poets 
speaks  of  certain  ladies  as  appearing  unveiled  so  that  they  resen>bled  slaves, 
which  is  exactly  the  idea  here  expressed.  Vitringa  and  others  render  ""'3:£ 
thy  hair  or  thy  braided  locks,  which  rests  on  an  Arabic  analogy,  as  the  sense 
of  vtil,  now  commonly  adopted,  does  on  Chaldee  usage.  The  parallel  word 
h'y:j  is  also  understood  by  some  as  meaning  hair,  by  others  the  foot,  or  the 
sleeve  ;  but  most  interpreters  are  now  agreed  in  giving  it  the  sense  of  skirt, 
and  to  the  whole  phrase  that  of  lift  up  (literally  strip)  thy  skirt  (or  train), 
corresponding  to  the  lifting  of  the  veil  in  the  preceding  clause. —  Uncover  the 
leg,  cross  streams  !  The  only  question  as  to  this  clause  is  whether  it  refers, 
as  Gesenius  and  Ewald  think,  to  the  fording  of  rivers  by  female  captives  as 
they  go  into  exile,  or  to  the  habitual   exposure  of  the  person,  by  which 


CHAPTER    XL  VII.  137 

women  of  the  lowest  class  are  especially  distinguished  in  the  east.  The 
latter  explanation,  which  is  that  of  Vitringa,  is  entitled  to  the  preference, 
not  only  hecaiise  we  read  of  no  deportation  of  the  Babylonians  by  Cyrus, 
but  because  the  other  terms  of  the  description  are  confessedly  intended  to 
contrast  two  conditions  of  life  or  classes  of  society. 

V.  3.  The  same  idea  of  exposure  is  now  carried  out  to  a  revolting 
extreme.  Let  thy  nakedness  be  uncovered,  likewise  let  thy  shame  he  seen. 
This  conveys  no  new  idea,  but  is  simply  the  climax  of  the  previous  descrip- 
tion.— I  ivill  take  vengeance.  The  metaphor  is  here  exchanged  for  literal 
expressions  by  so  easy  a  transition  that  it  scarcely  attracts  notice.  The 
destruction  of  Babylon  is  frequently  set  forth  as  a  righteous  retribution  for 
the  wrongs  of  Israel.  (See  Jer.  50:  15,  23.) — I  will  not  (or  /  shall  not) 
meet  a  man.  Of  the  various  and  discordant  explanations  of  this  clause,  it 
will  suffice  to  mention  one  or  two  of  the  most  current  or  most  plausible. 
Some  give  "53  the  sense  which  it  has  elsewhere  when  followed  by  the  prepo- 
sition 2,  viz.  that  of  interceding.  Thus  Jarchi  understands  the  words  to 
mean,  I  will  not  intercede  with  (or  solicit)  any  man  to  avenge  me,  but 
avenge  myself.  Grotius  gives  the  verb  the  sense  of  admitting  intercession  ; 
and  Lowth,  for  the  same  purpose,  reads  ""2S  in  the  Hiphil  form  (^neither  will 
I  suffer  man  to  intercede  with  me).  Gesenius,  in  his  Commentary,  traces  an 
affinity  between  r:Q  and  ^p,^  to  visit,  and  explains  the  clause  to  mean  /  will 
spare  no  man.  In  his  Thesaurus  he  connects  it  with  '"^s,  TTJ'/j'M'ro,  and  pacis- 
cor,  and  agrees  with  Maurer  in  translating,  I  will  strike  (or  ratify)  a  league 
with  no  man.  But  the  explanation  most  agreeable  to  usage,  and  at  the  same 
time  simplest  as  to  syntax,  is,  I  shall  (or  will)  meet  no  man.  This  is  not  to 
be  understood,  however,  with  Vitringa,  as  meaning  that  he  would  find  no 
one  to  avenge  him,  or  that  if  he  did  not  he  would  still  avenge  himself.  The 
true  sense  is  that  expressed  by  Rosenmiiller,  I  shall  encounter  no  man,  i.  e. 
no  man  will  be  able  to  resist  me.  This  simple  explanation  is  at  the  same 
time  one  of  the  most  ancient,  as  we  find  it  distinctly  expressed  by  Symma- 
chus  (ot'x  aniaTr^aeTui  ^oi  ui^Qconog)  and  in  the  Vulgate  (non  resistet  mild 
homo). — Independently  of  these  minuter  questions,  it  is  clear  that  the  whole 
clause  is  a  laconic  explanation  of  the  figures  which  precede,  and  which  are 
sunmied  up  in  the  simple  but  terrific  notion  of  resistless  and  inexorable  ven- 
geance. 

V.  4.  Our  Redeemer  (or  as  for  our  Redeemer),  Jehovah  of  Hosts  (/s) 
his  name,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel.  The  down  fill  of  Babylon  was  but  a 
proof  that  the  Deliverer  of  Israel  was  a  sovereign  and  eternal  being,  and  yet 
bound  to  his  own  people  in  the  strongest  and  tenderest  covenant  relation. 
Thus  understood,  the  verse  does   not  even  interrupt  the  sense,  but  makes  it 


138  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    XL  VI  I. 

clearer,  by  recalling  to  the  reader's  mind  the  great  end  for  wliicli  the  event 
took  })lacc  and  for  which  it  is  here  predicted.  Compare  with  this  Lowth's 
pedantic  supposition  of  a  cliorus,  which  is  scarcely  more  natural  than  that 
of  a  committee  or  a  jury,  and  Eichhorn's  deplorable  sugifestion  that  the  verse 
is  a  devout  reflection  of  some  Jewish  reader,  accidentally  transplanted  from 
the  margin  to  the  text.  This  is  justly  represented  by  Gesenius  as  a  make- 
shift (NothbchelJ),  a  description  equally  appropriate  to  many  of  his  own 
erasures  elsewhere,  if  not  to  his  extravagant  assumption  here,  that  the  words 
thus  soith  have  been  left  out  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence.  Maurer  im- 
proves upon  this  strange  exegetical  device  by  making  the  verse  merely 
introductory  to  that  which  follows,  Thus  saith  our  Redeemer,  whose  name  is 
Jehovah  of  Hosts,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  Sit  in  silence  etc.  In  this  way 
every  thing  may  easily  be  made  to  denote  any  thing.  The  only  tenable 
conclusion  is  the  obvious  and  simple  one,  that  this  is  a  distinct  link  in  the 
chain  of  the  prophetic  argument,  by  which  the  fall  of  Babylon  is  brought 
into  connexion  and  subordination  to  the  proof  of  God's  supremacy  as  shown 
in  the  protection  and  salvation  of  his  people.  That  the  Prophet  speaks 
here  in  his  own  person,  is  but  a  single  instance  of  a  general  usage,  charac- 
teristic of  the  whole  composition,  in  which  God  is  spoken  of,  spoken  to,  or 
introduced  as  speaking,  in  constant  alternation  ;  yet  without  confusion  or 
the  slightest  obscuration  of  the  general  meaning. 

V.  5.  Sit  silent  (or  in  silence),  and  go  into  darkness  (or  a  dark  place'), 
daughter  of  Chasdim !  The  allusion  is  to  natural  and  usual  expressions  of 
sorrow  and  despondency.  (See  Lam.  2:  10,  3 :  2,  28.)  The  explanation 
o(  darkness  as  a  m.etaphor  hv  jjrison  does  not  suit  the  context,  and  is  no 
more  natural  or  necessary  here  than  in  ch.  42 :  T. — For  thou  shnlt  not 
continue  to  he  called  (or  they  shall  not  continue  to  call  thee)  mistress  of 
kingdoms.  This  is  an  allusion  to  the  Babylonian  empire,  as  distinguished 
from  Babylonia  proper,  and  including  many  tributary  states,  which  Xenophon 
enumerates.  In  like  manner  the  Assyrian  king  is  made  to  ask  (ch.  10:  8), 
Are  not  my  princes  altogether  kings  ? 

V.  6.  I  was  wroth  against  my  people ;  I  profaned  my  heritage,  i.  e.  I 
suffered  my  chosen  and  consecrated  people  to  be  treated  as  something  com- 
mon and  unclean.  In  the  same  sense  God  is  said  before  (ch.  43  :  28)  to 
have  profaned  the  holy  princes.  Israel  is  called  Jehovah's  heritage,  as 
being  his  perpetual  possession,  continued  from  one  generation  to  another. 
This  general  import  of  the  figure  is  obvious  enough,  although  there  is  an 
essential  difference  between  this  case  and  that  of  literal  inheritance,  because 
in  the  latter  the  change  and  succession  affect  the  proprietor,  whereas  in  the 
former  they  affect  the  thing  possessed,  and  the  possessor  is  unchangeable. — 


CHAPTERXLVII.  139 

And  I  gave  them  into  thy  hand,  as  my  instruments  of  chastisement.  Thou 
didst  not  show  them  mercy,  literally  place  (give  or  appoint)  it  to  them. 
God's  providential  purpose  was  not  even  known  to  his  instruments,  and 
could  not  therefore  be  the  rule  of  their  conduct  or  the  measure  of  their 
responsibility.  Though  unconsciously  promoting  his  designs,  their  own 
ends  and  motives  were  entirely  corrupt.  In  the  precisely  analogous  case  of 
the  Assyrian,  it  is  said  (ch.  10:  7),  he  loill  not  think  so,  and  his  heart  not 
so  will  purpose,  because  to  destroy  (is)  in  his  heart  and  to  cut  off  nations 
not  a  feio. — The  general  charge  is  strengthened  by  a  specific  aggravation. 
On  the  aged  thou  didst  aggravate  thy  yoke  (or  make  it  heavy)  exceedingly. 
Koppe,  Gesenius,  Maurer,  and  Hitzig  understand  this  of  the  whole  people, 
whom  they  suppose  to  be  described  as  old,  i.  e.  as  having  reached  the  period 
of  natural  decrepitude.  Umbreit  agrees  with  Grotius  and  Vitringa  in  pre- 
ferring the  strict  sense  of  the  words,  viz.  that  they  were  cruelly  oppressive 
even  to  the  aged  captives,  under  which  Vitringa  is  disposed  to  include 
elders  in  office  and  in  rank  as  well  as  in  age.  This  particular  form  of  inhu- 
manity is  charged  upon  the  Babylonians  by  Jeremiah  twice  (Lam.  4:  16. 
5 :  12),  and  in  both  cases  he  connects  0^5,^1  with  a  parallel  term  denoting 
rank  or  office,  viz.  priests  and  princes.  Between  the  two  interpretations  of 
the  clause  which  have  been  stated,  Knobel  undertakes  to  steer  a  middle 
course,  by  explaining  )]:,]  to  mean  aged  in  the  strict  sense,  but  supposing  at 
the  same  time  that  this  single  act  of  tyranny  is  put  for  inhumanity  in  general. 
(Compare  Deut.  28  :  50.)  The  essential  meaning  of  the  clause,  as  a  descrip- 
tion of  inordinate  severity  to  those  least  capable  of  retaliation  or  resistance, 
still  remains  the  same  in  either  case. 

V.  7.  And  thou  saidst.  For  ever  I  shall  be  a  mistress,  i.  e.  a  mistress  of 
kingdoms,  the  complete  phrase  which  occurs  above  in  v.  5.  The  sense  of 
queen  is  therefore  wholly  inadequate,  unless  we  understand  it  to  mean  queen 
of  queens  or  queen  of  kings.  The  ellipsis  suggested  may  perhaps  account 
for  the  use  of  what  might  seem  to  be  a  construct  form,  instead  of  the  syno- 
nymous JT^'^aa  (I  Kings  11:  19).  Hitzig,  however,  goes  too  far  when  he 
makes  this  a  ground  for  disregarding  the  accentuation  and  connecting  the 
two  words  ^?  n-i2r.  in  the  sense  of  a  mistress  of  eternity,  i.  e.  a  perpetual 
mistress.  (Compare  Gen.  49 :  26.  Hab.  3  :  6.  Is.  9  :  5.)  As  examples  of 
the  segholate  termination  of  the  absolute  form,  Maurer  cites  ri-jb-j  (Ez. 
16:30)  and  r'l^x  (Cz.  17:8).  Mitzig  also  objects  to  the  masoretic  inter- 
punction,  that  it  requires  i?  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  so  (hat,  contrary  to 
usage.  But  this,  though  assumed  by  Gesenius  and  most  of  the  other  modern 
writers,  is  entirely  gratuitous.  The  conjunction  has  its  proper  sense  of  until, 
as  in  Job  H  :  6.  1  Sam.  20:41  ;  and  the  meaning  of  the  clause  is,  that  she 
had  persisted  in  this  evil  course  until  at  last  it  had  its  natural  effect  of  blind- 


140  CHAPTERXLVII. 

in^f  the  mind  and  hardening  the  heart.  Thou  saiJst,  For  ever  I  shall  be  a 
mistress,  till  (at  last)  thou  didst  not  lay  these  (things)  to  thy  heart.  The 
idea  of  causal  dependence  {so  thai)  is  imphed  but  not  expressed.  Laying 
to  heart,  including  an  exercise  of  intellect  and  feeling,  occurs,  with  slio^ht 
variations  as  to  form,  in  ch.  42  :  2-5.  44  :  19.  46  :  8. —  Thou  didst  not  remem- 
ber the  end  (or  latter  part,  or  issue)  of  it,  i.  e.  of  the  course  pursued,  the 
feminine  pronoun  being  put  for  a  neuter  as  in  ch.  46  :  11.  and  often  elsewhere. 
The  apparent  solecism  of  remembering  the  future  may  be  solved  by  observ- 
ing that  the  thing  forgotten  was  the  knowledge  of  the  future  once  possessed, 
just  as  in  common  parlance  we  use  hope  in  reference  to  the  past,  because 
we  hope  to  find  it  so,  or  hope  that  something  questionable  now  will  prove 
hereafter  to  be  thus  and  thus. 

V.  8.  And  now,  a  common  form  of  logical  resumption  and  conclusion, 
very  nearly  corresponding  to  our  phrases,  this  being  so,  or,  such  being  the 
case. — Hear  this,  i.  e.  what  I  have  just  said,  or  am  just  about  to  say,  or 
both. —  Oh  voluptuous  one!  The  common  version,  thou  that  art  given  to 
pleasures,  is  substantially  correct,  but  in  form  too  paraphrastical.  The 
translation  delicate,  which  some  give,  is  inadequate,  at  least  upon  the  com- 
mon supposition  that  this  term  is  not  intended,  like  the  kindred  ones  in  v.  1, 
to  contrast  the  two  conditions  of  prosperity  and  downfal,  but  to  bring  against 
the  Babylonians  the  specific  charge  of  gross  licentiousness,  in  proof  and 
illustration  of  which  Vitringa  quotes  the  words  of  Quintus  Curtius  :  Jiihil 
urbis  ejus  corruptius  moribus,  nee  ad  irritandas  illiciendasque  immodicas 
voluptates  instruciius,  to  which,  after  certain  gross  details,  the  historian  adds, 
Babylonii  maxime  in  vinum  et  quae  ebrietatem  sequuntur  effusi  sunt.  This 
corruption  of  morals,  as  in  other  like  cases,  is  supposed  to  have  been  aggra- 
vated by  the  wealth  of  Babylon,  its  teeming  population,  and  the  vast  con- 
course of  foreign  visitors  and  residents.  After  all,  however,  as  this  charge 
is  not  repeated  or  insisted  on,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  the  epithet  in 
question  was  intended  to  express  more  than  the  fact  of  her  abundant  pro- 
sperity about  to  be  exchanged  for  desolation  and  disgrace. —  The  (one) 
sitting  in  security.  The  common  version,  divellest,  is  as  much  too  vague  as 
that  of  Ewald,  which  explains  it  to  mean  sitting  on  a  throne,  is  too  specific. 
Sitting  seems  rather  to  be  mentioned  as  a  posture  of  security  and  ease. — 
The  (one)  saying  in  her  heart  (or  to  herself),  /  (am)  and  none  besides,  i.  e. 
none  like  or  equal  to  me.  There  has  been  much  dispute  respecting  the 
precise  sense  of  "'O^x  ;  but  the  question  is  only  of  grammatical  importance, 
as  all  admit  that  the  whole  phrase  I'l:?  '^pBX  is  equivalent  in  import  to  the 
common  one  lis  T^x  (ch.  45:5,  6,  IS,  etc.).  The  only  doubt  is  whether 
"^DBX  is  simply  negative  like  '|"^x ,  or  exceptive  (besides  me),  or  at  the  same 
time  negative  and  exceptive  (^none  besides  me).     This  double  explanation  is 


CHAPTERXLVII.  Hi 

given  by  Noldius  and  Vitringa,  but  is  justly  regarded  by  the  later  writers  as 
untenable.  Cocceius  makes  it  mean  besides  me,  and  assumes  an  interroga- 
tion, which  is  altogether  arbitrary.  De  Dieu  adojjts  the  same  construction, 
but  suggests  that  "Ssn  may  mean  only  I,  as  C3n  certainly  means  o)tli/  in 
Num.  2-2:35.  23:  13.  This  is  adopted  by  Gesenius  in  his  Commentary. 
Hitzig  objects  that  Ti"  is  then  superfluous,  and  that  analogy  would  require 
■'ix  D|x  .  He  therefore  makes  it  simply  exceptive  (^besides  me),  and  supposes 
an  ellipsis  of  the  negative.  Rosenmiiller,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  Knobel,  and 
Gesenius  in  the  notes  to  the  second  edition  of  his  version,  follow  J.  H.  Mi- 
chaelis  in  making  it  a  paragogic  form  and  simply  negative  {there  is  no  other, 
or  none  besides).  Maurer  goes  further,  and  explains  ^rJ  as  a  substantive 
dependent  on  the  construct  form  before  it  ;  literally,  nothing  of  more.  The 
sentiment  expressed  is  that  of  Martial  with  respect  to  Rome,  cui  par  est 
nihil  et  nihil  secundum.  (Compare  the  words  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  Dan. 
4 :  30.)  There  is  even  an  assumption  of  divine  supremacy  in  these  words, 
when  compared  with  the  frequent  use  of  the  pronoun  /,  in  the  solemn  decla- 
rations of  Jehovah  (ch.  45:6,  12.  43:  1  1,  etc.). — /  shall  not  sit  (as)  a 
widow.  The  figure  of  a  virgin  is  now  exchanged  for  that  of  a  wife,  a  strong 
proof  that  the  sign  was,  in  the  writer's  view,  of  less  importance  than  the 
thing  signified.  It  is  needless  to  inquire,  with  Viti'inga,  whether  the  hus- 
band, whose  loss  is  here  implied,  be  tlie  king  or  the  chief  men  collectively. 
It  is  not  the  city  or  the  state  of  which  widowhood  is  directly  predicated,  but 
the  royal  personage  that  represents  it.  The  same  comparison  is  used  by 
Jeremiah  of  Jerusalem  (Lam.  1  :  1.  Compare  Is.  51  :  18-20.  54:  1,  4,  5. 
Rev.  14:7).  According  to  J.  D.  Michaelis,  the  state  is  the  mother,  the 
soldiers  or  citizens  her  sons,  and  the  king  her  husband,  which  he  illustrates 
by  the  use  of  the  title  Dey  and  other  terms  of  relationship  to  designate  the 
state,  the  government,  etc.  in  Algiers  and  other  parts  of  Barbary.  To  sit 
as  a  widow  is  considered  by  Gesenius  as  suggesting  the  idea  of  a  mourner  ; 
yet  in  his  German  version  he  omits  the  word  entirely,  and  translates,  'I  shall 
never  be  a  widow,'  in  which  he  is  closely  followed  by  De  Wette.  All  the 
interpreters,  from  Grotius  to  Ewald,  seem  to  understand  widowhood  as  a 
specific  figure  for  the  loss  of  a  king  ;  but  Knobel  boldly  questions  it,  and 
applies  the  whole  clause  to  the  loss  of  allies,  or  of  all  friendly  intercourse 
with  foreign  nations. — And  I  shall  not  know  (by  experience)  the  loss  of 
children.  This  paraphrastical  expression  is  the  nearest  approach  that  we 
can  make  in  English  to  the  pregnant  Hebrew  word  ^i:b  .  Bereavement 
and  childlessness  may  seem  at  first  sight  more  exact,  but  the  first  is  not 
exclusively  appropriate  to  the  loss  of  children,  and  the  last  does  not  suggest 
the  idea  of  loss  at  all.  This  last  clause  is  paraphrased  by  Noyes,  nor  see 
myself  childless  ;  better  by  Henderson,  7ior  know  what  it  is  to  be  childless. 


142  CH  A  PT  E  R    XL  VII. 

V.  9.  And  they  shall  come  to  thee.  The  form  of  expression  seems  to 
have  some  reference  to  the  plirase  I  shall  not  hnoio  in  tiie  preceding  verse. 
As  if  he  had  said,  they  shall  no  longer  be  unknown  or  at  a  distance,  they 
shall  come  near  to  thee. —  These  two,  or  both  these  (things),  from  which  she 
thought  herself  secure  for  ever. — SadJenhj.  rsn  is  a  noun,  and  originally 
means  the  twinkling  of  an  eye  and  then  a  moment,  but  is  often  used 
adverbially  in  the  sense  oi  suddenly.  That  it  has  the  derivative  sense  here 
may  be  inferred  from  the  addition  of  the  words  in  one  day,  which  would  be 
a  striking  aniicliniax  if":'";  strictly  mpant  a  moment  or  the  twinkling  of  an 
eye.  This  objection  is  but  partially  removed  by  Lowth's  change  of  the 
interpunction  (these  two  things  in  a  moment,  in  one  day  loss  of  children 
and  widowhood !),  because  the  first  expression  is  still  much  the  strongest, 
unless  we  understand  in  one  day  to  express  not  mere  rapidity  or  suddenness 
but  the  concurrence  of  the  two  privations. — Loss  of  children  and  widow- 
hood, as  in  the  verse  preceding,  are  explained  by  most  interpreters  as  figures 
for  the  loss  of  king  and  people. — In  their  perfection,  literally,  according  to 
it,  1.  e.  in  the  fullest  measure  possible,  implying  total  loss  and  destitution. — 
They  have  come  upon  thee.  The  English  Version  makes  it  future  like  the 
verb  in  the  preceding  clause;  but  this  is  wholly  arbitrary.  There  is  less 
objection  to  the  present  form  adopted  by  the  modern  German  writers  ;  but 
according  to  the  i)rinciple  already  stated  and  exemplified  so  often,  it  is  best 
to  give  the  word  its  proper  meaning,  and  to  understand  it  not  as  a  mere 
repetition  of  what  goes  before,  but  as  an  addition  to  it,  or  at  least  a  varia- 
tion in  the  mode  of  exhibition.  What  he  at  first  saw  coming,  he  now  sees 
actually  come,  and  describes  it  accordingly. — Of  the  2  in  the  next  clause 
there  are  three  interpretations.  Ewald  agrees  with  the  English  Version  and 
the  Vulgate  hi  explaining  it  to  mean  propter,  on  account  of,  and  supposing 
it  to  bring  a  new  specific  charge  against  the  Babylonians,  by  assigning  a  nev^ 
cause  for  their  destruction,  viz.  their  cultivation  of  the  occult  arts.  Gesenius 
and  the  other  recent  writers  follow  Calvin  and  Vilringa  in  making  it  mean 
notwithstanding,  as  in  ch.  5  :  25.  and  Num.  14  :  11.  There  is  then  no  new 
charge  or  reason  assigned,  but  a  simple  declaration  of  the  insufficiency  of 
superstitious  arts  to  save  them.  But  a  better  course  than  either  is  to  give 
the  particle  its  proper  sense  o{  in  or  in  the  midst  of,  which  suggests  both 
the  other  ideas,  but  expresses  more,  viz.  that  they  should  perish  in  the  very 
act  of  using  these  unlawful  and  unprofitable  means  of  preservation. — In  the 
multitude  of  thy  enchantments,  in  the  abundance  of  thy  spells  (or  charms). 
The  parallel  terms,  though  applied  to  the  same  objects,  are  of  different  origin, 
the  first  denoting  primarily  prayers  or  acts  of  worship,  and  then  superstitious 
rites;  the  other  specifically  meaning  bans  or  spells  (from  "inn  to  bind),  with 
reference,  as  Gesenius  supposes,  to  the  outward  act  of  tying  magical  knots, 


CHAPTERXLVII.  143 

but  as  the  older  writers  think,  to  the  restraining  or  constraining  influence 
supposed  to  he  exerted  on  the  victim  or  even  on  the  gods  themselves. — The 
construction  of 'nx'2  jiere  is  unusual.  Gesenius  regards  it  as  immediately 
dependent  upon  f^^^^  although  separated  from  it  by  an  intervening  word, 
the  multitude  of  strength  i.  e.  the  strong  multitude  of  thy  enchantments. 
Maurer  says  that  ix^  is  construed  as  an  adjective  ;  while  Hitzig  makes  it  as 
usual  an  adverb,  qualifying  i^^^^?  which  is  here  equivalent  to  an  infinitive. 
In  either  case  the  sense  is  essentially  the  same,  viz.  that  of  very  powerful, 
or  very  numerous,  or  very  powerful  and  numerous  enchantments.  The 
prevalence  of  these  arts  in  ancient  Babylon  is  explicitly  affirmed  by  Diodorus 
Siculus,  and  assumed  as  a  notorious  fact  by  other  ancient  writers. 

V.  10.  And  {yei)  thou  art  (or  wasi)  secure  iJi  thy  wickedness.     Vitringa 
and  most  of  the  later  writers  have  thou  trustedsl  in  thy  wickedness,  but  differ 
as  to  the  precise  sense  of  the  last  word,  some  referring  it,  with  Jerome,  to  the 
occult  arts  of  the  preceding  verse,  others  making  it  denote  specifically  tyranny 
or  fraud,  or  both  combined  as  in  ch.  33  :  1.     But  even  in  the  places  which 
are  cited  in  proof  of  this  specific  explanation  (such  asch.  13:  11.  Nah.  3:  9, 
etc.),  the  restriction  is  either  suggested  by  the  context  or  entirely  gratuitous. 
There  is  therefore  no  sufficient  reason  for  departing  from  the  wide  sense  of 
the  word   as  descriptive  of  the  whole  congeries  of  crimes  with  which  the 
Babylonians  were  chargeable.     But  neither  in  the  wide  nor  the  restricted 
sense  could  their  wickedness  itself  be  an  object  of  trust.     It  is  better,  there- 
fore, to  give  the  verb  the  absolute  meaning  which  it  frequently  has  elsewhere, 
and  to  explain  the  whole  phrase  as  denoting  that  they  went  on  in  their  wick- 
edness without  a  fear  of  change  or  punishment.     In  this  way,  moreover,  we 
avoid  the  necessity  of  multiplying  the  specific  charges  against  Babylon,  by 
giving  to  the  Prophet's  words  a  technical  and  formal  meaning  which  they 
will  not  naturally  bear.     Thus  Vitringa  introduces  this  verse  as  the  statement 
of  a  fourth  crime  or  impulsive  cause  of  Babylon's  destruction,  namely,  her 
wickedness  (nialitia);  and  as  this  of  course  includes  all  the  rest,  he  is  under 
the  necessity  of  explaining  it  to  mean  specifically  cwnni/?^  and  reliance  on  it. 
The  construction  which  has  been  proposed  above  may  be  the  one  assumed 
in    the    Vulgate  (^fduciam  habuisli  in  malitia  tua^  ;  but  the  only  modern 
version  where  I  find  it   expressed  is   that  of  Augusti  (</«  warst  sicher  bci 
deiner  Bosheit),  which  De  VVette,  in  his  in)proved   version,  has  abandoned 
for  the  old  one.     The  idea  of  security  in  ivickedness  agrees  precisely  with 
what  follows. —  Thou  hast  said,  there  is  no  one  seeing  me,  a  form  of  speech 
frequently  ascribed  to  presumptuous  sinners  and  unbelievers  in  the  doctrine 
of  providential   retribution.      (See  Ps.  10:  11.  94  :  7.  Ezek.  8:  12.  9:9. 
Job  22:  14.)      This,  on   the   other   hand,  is   not   a    natural  expression   of 


144  CHAPTERXLVII. 

specific  trust  in  any  form  of  wickedness.  He  who  relies  upon  his  power  or 
his  cunning  as  a  complete  protection  will  be  not  so  apt  to  say  "  None  seeth 
nie"  as  to  feel  indifierent  whether  he  is  seen  or  not. —  Thy  wisdom  and  thy 
Tcnoioledge,  it  has  seduced  thee.  The  insertion  of  the  pronoun  (x^n)  admits 
of  a  twofold  explanation.  It  may  mean  thy  very  wisdom,  upon  which  thou 
hast  so  long  relied  for  guidance,  has  tise^ misled  thee.  But  at  the  same 
time  it  may  serve  to  show  that  wisdom  and  knowledge  are  not  here  to  be 
distinfuished  but  considered  as  identical.  He  does  not  say  thy  u-isdotn  and 
knowledge  they  have,  but  it  has,  seduced  thee.  By  wisdom  and  knowledge 
some  understand  astronomy  and  astrology,  others  political  sagacity  and 
diplomatic  skill,  for  which  it  is  inferred  that  the  Babylonians  were  distin- 
guished, from  the  places  where  their  ivise  men  are  particularly  mentioned. 
(See  for  example  Jer.  50  :  35.  51  :  57.)  But  in  these  descriptions  of  the 
Babylonian  empire,  and  the  analogous  accounts  of  Tyre  (Ezek.  28  :  4)  and 
Egypt  (Is.  19  :  11),  the  reference  seems  not  so  much  to  any  thing  peculiar 
to  the  state  in  question,  as  to  that  peculiar  political  wisdom  which  is  pre- 
supposed in  the  very  existence,  much  more  in  the  prosperity,  of  every  great 
empire.  Gesenius  understands  these  expressions  as  ironical,  an  indirect 
denial  that  they  were  possessed  of  wisdom.  But  this  is  an  unnecessary 
supposition,  and  not  entirely  consistent  with  the  tone  of  the  whole  context. 
It  was  probably  not  merely  the  conceit  of  knowledge  but  its  actual  possession 
that  had  led  the  Babylonians  astray.  The  verb  25111:  means  to  turn  aside 
(convert)  from  one  course  to  another,  and  is  used  both  in  a  good  sense  and 
a  bad  one.  An  example  of  the  former  may  be  found  below  in  ch.  49:  5, 
and  of  the  latter  here,  where  the  word  means  not  exactly  io  pervert,  or  as 
Low  til  translates  it,  \.o  pervert  the  mind,  but  rather  to  misguide,  seduce,  or 
lead  astray,  like  T\v.'r>  in  ch.  44  :  20.  Thy  knoivkdge  and  thy  ivisdom.,  it  has 
seduced  thee. — The  remainder  of  the  verse  describes  the  effect  of  this 
perversion  or  seduction  in  the  same  terms  that  had  been  employed  above  in 
V.  8,  and  which  occur  elsewhere  only  in  Zeph.  2  :  15,  which  appears  to  be 
an  imitation  of  the  place  before  us,  and  not  its  original  as  Hitzig  and  others 
arbitrarily  assume. — And  thou  saidst  (or  hast  said)  in  thy  heart.  The  indi- 
rect construction,  so  that  thou  hast  said,  contains  more  than  is  expressed,  but 
not  more  than  is  implied,  in  the  original. — /  am  and  there  is  no  other.  J.  D. 
Michaelis  understands  this  boast  to  mean,  I  am  Babylon  and  there  is  no  other. 
But  most  interpreters  prefer  the  general  meaning,  I  am  what  no  one  else  is  ; 
there  is  no  one  like  me,  much  less  equal  to  me.  (See  above,  on  v.  8.)  This 
arrogant  presumption  is  ascribed  to  their  wisdom  and  knowledge,  not  as  its 
Icfritimate  effect,  but  as  a  necessary  consequence  of  its  perversion  and  abuse, 
as  well  as  of  men's  native  disposition  to  exaggerate  the  force  and  authority 
of  unassisted  reason.  (Compare  ch.  5:  21,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies, 
p.  78.) 


CHAPTERXLVII.  I45 

V.  11.  And  (so)   there  comeih   (or  has  come')  upon  thee  evil;   wiih  an 
evident  allusion  to  the  use  of  n^n  in  the  verse  preceding,  so  as  to  suggest  a« 
antithesis  between  natural  and  moral  evil,  sin  and  suffering,  evil  done  and  e*^il 
experienced.      The  vav  at  the  beginning   is    not   properly  conversive, <is  it 
does   not  depend  upon  a  foregoing  future  (Nordheimer  "^  219)  ;  so  tl^t  the 
common  version  (therefore  shall  evil  come)  is  not  strictly  accurate     Most 
of  the  modern  writers  make  it  present ;  but  the  strict  sense  of  the  »reterite  is 
perfectly  consistent  with  the  context   and   the   usage  of  the   Pophet,  who 
continually  depicts  occurrences  still  future,  first   as  coming,  t'^n   as  come, 
not  in  fact  but  in  vision,  both  as  certain  to  occur  and  as   hi-^oiically  repre- 
sented to  his  own  mind.     The  phrase  come  upon  is  expla'"'6d   ^Y   Vitringa 
as  implying  descent  from  above  or  infliction   by  a  hig't^r  power. — Of  the 
next  clause   ihere  are  several  distinct  interpretations  all   of  which   agree 
in   making  it    descriptive  of  the  evil  threatened  in  tl>'  one  before  it.     From 
the  use  of  the  verb  nnd  in  Ps.  73:  34  and  elsewhef^j  Lowth  and  others  give 
it  here  the  sense  of  intercession  (thou  shalt  not  kno^'  f^ow  to  deprecate),  which 
seems  to    be  also   given  in  the  Targum  and  a'P'^o^ed  by  Jarchi.     Jerome 
takes  "ina  as  a  noun    meaning  dawn,  and   un^'^i'slands   by   it  the  origin  or 
source  of  the  calamity  (_nescis  ortum  ejus),  in**'l"ch  he  is  followed  by  Viiringa 
and  Rosenmiiller,  who  appear  however  to^pply  ^lie  term,  not  merely  to  the 
source  of  the  evil,  but  to  the  time  of  !^'  commencement,  which  should  be 
like  a  day  without  a  dawn,  i.  e.  sudf^"  and  without  premonition.     There 
is   something   so  unnatural,  howeve*'-  and   at   variance   with   usage,  in    the 
representation  of  misfortune  as  a  a'iA'ning  day,  that  Gesenius,  Maurer,  and 
Umbreit,  wiio   retain   the  same  tn-nslation  of  the  word,  reverse  the  sense  of 
the   whole   phrase   by  supposiiV^^  ^°  "^^an  not  a  preceding  but  a  following 
dawn  ;   in   which   case   the   e'-^  is    described  not  as  a  day  without  a  dawn 
before  it,  but  as  a   nighr  wf-hout  a  dawning  after  it, — a  figure  natural  and 
striking   in   itself,  and  ver^  strongly  recommended  by  the  use  of  nnd  in  the 
same  sense  by  Isaiah  elst^-^^l^ere.   (See  ch.  8  :  20,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies, 
p.  149.)      Hitzig   and  ^vvald  still  prefer,  however,  the  hypothesis  of  J.  D. 
Michaelis  and  others,  vf'ho  identify  "^n-jj  with  the  Arabic^,  and  explain  it 
either  as  a  noun  (a^ri/isi  which  thou  hast  no  charm)  or  as  an  infinitive  (thou 
shalt  not  know  kow  to  charm  or  conjure  it  away).     This  construction  has 
the  advantage  ofcreating  a  more  perfect  correspondence  between  this  word 
and   the  simil?'    verbal   form  (rrjs?)    with    which    the    next  clause  ends. 
Grotius  and  6lericus  appear  to  regard  -^n'4  as  a  mere  poetical  equivalent  to 
day,  which  is  highly  improbable  and  not  at  all  sustained  by  usage. — And 
there  shall  fall  upon  thee  (a  still  stronger  expression  than  the  one  before  it, 
there  shall  come  upon  thee)  ruin.     According  to  the  modern  lexicographers, 
the  noun  itself  means /a//,  but  in  its  figurative  application  to  destruction  or 
calamity.     It  occurs  only  here  and  in  Ezek.  7  :  26 — Thou  shalt  not  he  able 

10 


146  C  H  AP  T  E  R    XL  VII. 

to  avert  it,  or  resolving  the  detached  Hebrew  clauses  into  one  English  period. 
j'hich  thou  sholt  not  be  able  to  avert.  The  exact  meaning  of  the  last  word 
is  atone  for,  expiate,  and  in  tiiis  connexion,  to  avert  by  expiation,  whether 
in  tte  strict  sense  of  atoning  sacrifice  or  in  the  wider  one  of  satisfaction  and 
propiiation.  If  we  assume  a  personification  of  the  evil,  the  verb  may  mean 
to  apptnse,  as  in  Gen.  3:2:  21.  Prov.  16:  14.  In  any  case,  the  clause 
describes  the  threatened  judgment  as  inexorable  and  inevitable. — And  there 
shall  come  upon  thee  suddenly  a  crash, — or  as  J.  D.  Michaelis  renders  it,  a 
crashing  fall  2i  common  metaphor  for  sudden  ruin, — (which)  thou  shalt  not 
Tcnow.  This  nay  either  mean,  of  which  thou  shalt  have  no  previous 
experience,  or  tf  which  thou  shalt  have  no  previous  expectation.  The 
former  meaning  is^he  one  most  readily  suggested  by  the  words.  The  latter 
may  be  justified  b)  the  analogy  of  Job  9  :  5,  who  removeth  the  mountains 
and  they  know  not,  w^jch  can  only  mean  that  he  removes  them  suddenly  or 
unawares.  Because  th-  same  verb  "^""n  in  the  first  clause  governs  a  follow- 
ing word  {tho}i  shalt  not  Uiqk;.  {is  da^vn,  or  how  to  conjure  it  aicay),  Lowth 
adopts  Seeker's  hint  that  .  similar  dependent  word  has  here  been  lost,  but 
does  not  venture  to  detern^^e  what  it  was,  though  he  thinks  it  may  have 
been  njr^  nita ,  as  in  Jer.  11  :\i. 

V.  12.   Stand  now  I     It  musti^Q  borne  in  mind  that  xj  is  not  a  particle 

of  time  but  of  entreaty,  very  often  Cd-responding  to  I  pray,  or  if  you  please. 

In  this  case  it  indicates  a  kind  of  concession  to  the  people,  if  they  still  choose 

to  try  the  virtue  of  their  superstitious  a^s  which  be  had  already  denounced 

as  worthless.     Some   interpreters  have  ^pne  too   far  in  representing   this 

passage  as  characterized   by  a  tone  of  bilng  sarcasm. — Stand  noiv  in  thy 

spells  (or  charms).     Viiringa  supposes  an  alhgjon  to  the  customary  standing 

posture  of  astrologers,  conjurers,  etc.     Others  xinderstand  the  verb  to  mean 

stand  fast,  be  firm  and  courageous.     But  the  modern  writers  generally  follow 

Lowth  in    understanding    it   to   mean  jsersfs^  or  {^^vsevere,  which  of  course 

requires  the  preposition  to  be  taken  in  its  usual  proper  sense  of  in. — Persist 

noiv  in  thy  spells  and  in  the  abundance  of  thy  charni\  the  same  nouns  that 

are  joined  above  in   v.  9.     In  which  thou  hast  lahow\l     Gesenius  in  his 

Grammar  (-§.  121.  2)  mentions  this  as  one  of  the  only  tvo  cases  in  which 

the  Hebrew  relative  is  governed  directly  by  a  preposition, {^  lohich  instead 

of  which  in  them,  the  usual  idiomatic  combination.     But  Hizig  and  Ewald 

do  away  with  this  exception,  by  supposing  the  particle  to  be-lependent  on 

the  verb  at  the  beginning,  and  the  relative  directly  on  the  verb  inat  follows  : 

persist  in   that   %ohich   (or  in  that  respecting  ivhich)  thou  hast  laloured  (or 

ivearied  thyself;  see  above,  on  ch.  43  :  22)  from  thy  youth.     T\iis   may 

either  mean    of  old,  or  more   specifically,  since   the   earliest    period  of  thy 

national  existence.    The  antiquity  of  occult  arts,  and  above  all  of  astrclogy, 


CHAPTERXLVII.  I47 

in  Babylon,  is  attested  by  various  profane  writers.  Diodorus  Siculus  indeed 
derives  them  from  Egyj)t,  and  describes  the  Chaldees  or  astrologers  of 
Babylon  as  Egyptian  colonists.  But  as  this  last  is  certainly  erroneous  (see 
above  on  v.  l),  the  other  assertion  can  have  no  authority.  The  Babylonians 
are  reported  by  the  same  and  other  writers  to  have  carried  back  their  own 
antiquity,  as  proved  by  recorded  scientific  observations,  to  an  extravagant 
and  foolish  length,  to  which  some  think  there  is  allusion  here  in  the  expression 
from  tuy  youth. — Perhaps  thou  wilt  be  able  to  succeed,  or  keep  thyself,  the 
verb  commonly  tvanslaied  jjroft.  (See  above,  ch.  44  :  10.)  ''h^a  originally 
means  if  not  or  whether  not,  but  in  usage  corresponds  more  nearly  io  perhaps 
than  it  does  to  the  conditional  con)|)ouiid,  if  so  be,  which  is  the  common 
English  Version  liere.  This  faint  suggestion  of  a  possibility  is  more  expressive 
than  a  positive  denial. — Perhaps  than  uilt  grow  strong,  or  prevail,  as  the 
ancient  versions  render  it;  or  resist,  as  Rosenmiiller,  Hiizig,  and  Ewald 
explain  it  from  an  Arabic  analogy  ;  or  terrify  (thine  adversary),  as  Gcsenius 
explains  it  from  the  analogy  ofch.  2:  19,  21.  (Compare  Ps.  10:  IS  and 
Job  13  :  25.)  In  ehher  case  the  word  is  a  specification  of  the  more  general 
term  succeed  or  profit. 

V.  13.    Thou  art  u-ioried  in  the  mullitude  of  thy  counsel,  not  merely 
weary  o/it,  but  exhausted  by  it,  and    in   the    very  act  of  usino-  it.     rpr^ss 
seems  to  be  a  singular  noun  with  a  plural  suffix,  a  combination  which  may 
be  supposed  to  have  aiisen  either  from   the   want   of  any  construct  plural 
form  in   lliis  case,  or  from  a  designed  assimilation  with  the  plurals  in  v.  J  2. 
As  ::"t  may  denote  either  numerical   multitude  or  aggregate  abundance,  it  is 
o/ten  construed  with  a  singular,  for  instance  in  Ps.  5:8.  52  :  9.  Is.  37  :  24. 
By  counsel  we  are  not  to  understand  the  computations  or  conferences  of  the 
asn-onomers,  but  all  the  devices  of  the    government  ,^or  self-defence.     The 
German  writers  have  introduced  an  idiom  of  their  own  into  the  first  clause 
wholly  foreign  from   the  usage  of  the   Hebrew  language,  by  making  it  con- 
ditional, which  Noyes  has  copied  by  giving  it  the  form  of  an  interrogation  : 
art  thou  ivcary  etc.  ?     The    original   form   is   that  o(  a   short   indeiiendent 
proposition. — Let  now  (ov  jjray  let)  them  stand  and  save  thee.     We  may 
take  stand,  either  in  the  same  sense  which  it  has  above  in  v.  12,  or  in  that 
of  appearing,  coming  forward,  presenting  themselves.     The  use  of  "Jr ?  ,  jn 
the  sense  of  rising,  is  erroneously  alleged  as  a  peculiar  feature  in  the  diction 
of  these  Later  Prophecies. — The  subject  of  the  verbs  is  then  defined.      The 
dividers  of  the  heavens,  i.  e.  the  astrologers,  so  called  because  they  divided 
the  heavens  into  houses  with  a  view  to  their  prognostications.     Henderson's 
reference  to  the  twelve  signs  of  the  Zodiac  is  loo  restricted.     The  chethibh 
or  textual  reading  ('■-")  is  regarded  by  some  as  an  old  form  of  the  plural 


148  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  V  I  I. 

construct,  but  by  others  ns  the  third  person  plural  of  the  preterite,  agreeing 
with  the  relative  pronoun  understood  (^icho  divide).  Kinichi  regards  division 
as  a  figure  for  decision  or  determination,  which  is  wholly  unnecessary.  Some 
read  ''"il^n,  and  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  derivative  noun  in  v.  12;  while 
others  trace  it  to  the  Arabic  root  ^j^  ,  and  suppose  the  phrase  to  mean  those 
who  know  the  heavens.  All  admit  however  that  the  general  sense  is  correctly 
given  by  the  Sepluagint  {acrnoXnyoi  rov  Dvnavov)  and  the  Vulgate  (augures 
coeli). — The  same  class  of  persons  is  then  spoken  of  as  star-gazers,  an 
English  phrase  which  well  expresses  the  peculiar  force  of  n^-'n  followed  by 
the  preposition  3.  Some  however  give  the  former  word  its  frequent  sense 
of  seers  or  prophets,  and  regard  what  follows  as  a  limiting  or  qualifying 
term,  the  whole  corresponding  to  the  English  phrase  star-prophets,  i.  e. 
such  as  prophesy  by  means  of  the  stars. — The  next  phrase  does  not  mean 
making  known  the.  neiv  moons,  for  these  returned  at  stated  intervals  and 
needed  no  prognosticator  to  reveal  them.  The  sense  is  either  at  the  ncio 
moons,  or  hy  means  of  the  new  moons,  i,  e.  the  changes  of  the  moons,  of 
which  the  former  is  the  simpler  explanation. — Interpreters  are  much  divided 
as  to  the  way  in  which  the  remaining  words  of  this  verse  are  to  be  connected 
with  what  goes  before.  Aben  Ezra  and  Vitringa  make  the  clause  dependent 
on  the  verb  save  :  '  Let  them  save  them  from  (the  things)  which  are  about 
to  come  upon  thee.'  The  only  objections  to  this  construction  are  the 
distance  of  the  words  thus  connected  from  each  other,  and  the  absolute  sense 
which  it  puts  upon  5^5"'l"in  by  removing  its  object.  The  modern  writers, 
with  a  very  few  exceptions,  connect  this  participle  with  what  follows, 
making  known  at  the  ncto  moons  ivhat  shall  come  upon  thee.  The  "i^  may 
then  be  partitive  (sojiie  of  the  things  etc.)  or  indicate  the  subject  of  the 
revelation  (o/  i.  e.  concerning  ivhat  shall  come  etc.).  To  the  former  Vitringa 
objects,  that  the  astrologers  would  undertake  of  course  to  reveal  not  only 
some  but  all  things  still  future.  But  Jarchi  suggests,  that  the  new  moon 
could  afford  only  partial  information  ;  and  J.  D.  Michaelis,  that  this  limited 
pretension  would  afford  the  astrologers  a  pretext  and  apology  for  frequent 
failures.  But  the  other  construction  is  now  commonly  preferred,  except  that 
Ewald  gives  to  "I'r"^.^.  the  meaning  whence,  i.  e.  from  what  source  or  quarter 
these  things  are  to  come  upon  thee. 

V.  14.  Behold  they  are  like  stubble,  fire  has  burned  them  (the  Baby- 
lonian astrologers).  The  construction  given  by  Gesenius  (stubble  which  the 
fire  consumes)  is  inconsistent  with  the  plural  suffix.  Behold  brings  their 
destruction  into  view  as  something  present.  It  is  on  this  account  more 
natural,  as  well  as  more  exact,  to  give  the  verbs  a  past  or  present  form,  as 
Ewald  does,  than  to  translate  them  in  the  future.     He  not  only  prophesies 


CHAPTERXLVII.  149 

that  they  shall  be  burnt,  but  sees  them  burning.  The  comparison  with 
stubble  seems  intended  to  suggest  that  they  are  worthless  and  combustible, 
whose  end  is  to  be  burned.  (Heb.  6  :  8.)  At  the  same  time  a  contrast  is 
designed,  as  Kimchi  well  observes,  between  the  burning  of  stubble  and  the 
burning  of  wood,  the  former  being  more  complete  and  rapid  than  the  latter. 
— They  cannot  deliver  themselves  from  the  hand  (i.  e.  the  power)  of  the  fame. 
Gesenius  and  most  of  the  later  writers  translate  ctlJS3  their  life  ;  Hitzig  and 
Ewald  still  more  rigidly,  their  soul.  But  the  reflexive  sense  themselves  is 
not  only  favoured  by  the  analogy  of  ch.  46  :  2,  but  required  by  the  context. 
There  is  at  least  much  less  significance  and  point  in  saying  that  they  cannot 
save  their  lives,  than  in  saying  that  they  cannot  even  save  themselves,  much 
less  their  votaries  and  dependents. — The  last  clause  contains  a  negative 
description  of  the  fire  mentioned  in  the  first.  Of  this  description  there  are 
two  interpretations.  Grotius,  Clericus,  Vitringa,  Lowth,  Gesenius,  and 
Maurer,  understand  it  to  mean  that  the  destruction  of  the  fuel  will  be  so 
complete  that  nothing  will  be  left  at  which  a  man  can  sit  and  warm  himself. 
But  as  this  gratuitously  gives  to  'ps  the  sense  there  is  not  left,  without  the 
least  authority  from  usage,  Ewald  and  Knobel  agree  with  J.  D.  Michaelis 
and  others  in  explaining  it  to  mean,  (this fre)  is  not  a  coal  (at  which)  to 
warm  one^s  self,  a  fire  to  sit  before,  but  a  devouring  and  consuming  con- 
flagration. The  only  difficulty  in  the  way  of  this  interpretation  is  a  slight 
one,  namely,  that  it  takes  rbnr.  in  the  sense  of  a  coal-fire  and  not  a  single 
coal.  With  either  of  these  expositions  of  the  whole  clause  may  be  reconciled 
a  different  interpretation  of  the  word  aianb  proposed  by  Saadias  and  inde- 
pendently of  him  by  Cocceiiis.  These  writers  give  the  word  the  sense  which 
it  invariably  has  in  every  other  place  where  it  occurs,  viz.  their  bread. 
(See  Job  30  :  4.  Prov.  30  :  25.  Ezek.  4  :  13.  12  :  19.  Hos.  9  :  4.)  The 
whole  expression  then  means  that  it  is  not  a  common  fire  for  baking  bread, 
or,  on  the  other  supposition,  that  there  are  not  coals  enough  left  for  that 
purpose.  The  phrase  c^cn^  rhni  (coal  of  their  bread)  presents  a  harsh  and 
unusual  combination,  rendered  less  so  however  by  the  use  of  both  words  in 
ch.  44:  19.  This  construction  is  approved  by  Rosenmiiller ;  but  the  other 
modern  writers  seem  to  be  agreed  in  making  D^cnb  ihe  infinitive  of  ccn 
(ch.  44:  15,  IG)  with  a  preposition,  analogous  in  form  to  =:=:3n  fiom  'sn 
(ch.  30 :  18).  One  manuscript  has  ^^an':; ,  which  is  nearer  to  the  usual  analog)- 
of  this  class  of  verbs,  but  embarrasses  the  syntax  with  a  pleonastic  suffix. — 
The  general  sense  of  sudden,  rapid,  and  complete  destiuction,  is  not  affected 
by  these  minor  questions  of  grammatical  analysis. 

V.  15.    Thus  arc  they  to  thee,  i.  e.  such  is  their  fate,  you  see  what  has 
become  of  them.     The  ~|"v  is  not  superfluous,  as  Gesenius  asserts,  although 


150  C  H  APT  E  R    XL  VI  I. 

foreign  from  our  idiom.  It  s(i<rgests  the  additional  idea  that  the  person 
addressed  was  interested  in  them  and  a  Avitness  of  their  ruin. —  JVith  respect 
to  whom  thou  hast  laboured.  This  may  either  mean  with  whom  or  for 
whom  ;  or  both  m;iy  be  included  in  the  general  idea  that  these  had  been  the 
object  and  occasion  of  her  labours. —  Thy  dealers  (or  traders)  from  thy 
youth.  This  is  commonly  regarded  as  explanatory  of  the  foregoing  clause. 
Thus  the  English  Version,  they  with  whom  thou  hast  laboured,  even  thy 
merchants  etc.  It  then  becomes  a  question  whether  these  are  called  traders 
in  the  literal  and  ordinary  sense,  or  at  least  in  that  of  national  allies  and 
negociators ;  or  whether  the  epithet  is  given  in  contempt  to  the  astrologers 
and  wise  men  of  the  foregoing  context,  as  trafficking  or  dealing  in  imposture. 
J.  D.  Michaelis  supposes  them  to  be  described  as  travelling  dealers,  i.  e. 
pedlers  and  hawkers,  who  removed  from  place  to  place  lest  their  frauds 
should  be  discovered.  He  even  compares  them  with  the  gipsy  fortune- 
tellers of  our  own  day,  but  admits  that  the  astrologers  of  Babylonia  held  a 
very  different  position  in  society.  Against  any  application  of  the  last  clause 
to  this  order  it  may  be  objected  that  the  preceding  verse,  of  which  this  is  a 
direct  continuation,  represents  them  as  already  utterly  consumed.  The  true 
solution  of  the  difficulty  seems  to  be  afforded  by  the  masoretic  interpunction 
of  the  sentence,  which  connects  Ti'^'^nb  not  with  what  precedes  but  with  what 
follows.  According  to  this  arrangement  we  are  not  to  read  and  so  are  thy 
dealers,  or  even  thy  dealers,  but  thy  dealers  fram  thy  youth  wander  each  his 
own  way.  We  have  then  two  classes  introduced,  and  two  distinct  events 
predicted.  As  if  he  had  said,  thy  astrologers  etc.  are  utterly  destroyed,  and 
as  for  thy  dealers,  they  wander  home  etc.  w  idely  different  in  fate,  but  both 
alike  in  this,  that  they  leave  thee  defenceless  in  the  hour  of  extremity.  Thy 
traders  nray  then  be  taken  either  in  its  strict  sense  as  denoting  foreign 
merchants,  or  in  its  wider  sense  as  comprehending  all,  whether  states  or 
individuals,  with  whom  she  had  intercourse,  commercial  or  political.  Ewald 
revives  Houbigant's  interpretation  of  the  word  as  meaning  sorcerers,  in  order 
to  sustain  which  by  the  Arabic  analogy,  he  seems  inclined  to  read  Tj'?'!!'!!^? 
without  the  least  necessity  or  warrant. — These  are  described  as  thirtking 
only  of  providing  for  their  own  security.  (Compare  cb.  13  :  14.  43  :  14.) 
Each  to  his  oxon  quarter,  side,  direction, — substantially  synonymous  with 
T^jQ  ''■::2-bs  (Ezek.  1  :  9,  12),  and  other  phrases  all  meaning  straight  before 
him,  without  turnini^  to  the  right  hand  or  the  left, — they  wander  (or  have 
wandered),  a  term  implying  not  only  flight  but  confusion.  The  plural  form 
agrees  with  the  subject  understood,  and  not  with  the  distributive  expression 
a5is  by  whicb  that  subject  is  defined  arid  qualified. —  There  is  no  one  help- 
ing thee,  or  still  more  strongly,  saving  thee,  thou  hast  no  saviour, — with 
particular  reference  to  those  just  mentioned,  who,  Instead  of  thinking  upon 


CHAPTER    XLVIII.  L5I 

her  or  bringing  her  assistance,  would  be  wholly  engrossed  by  a  sense -of 
their  own  danger  and  the  effort  to  escape  it.  There  is  no  need  of  supposing, 
with  Hitzig,  that  the  image  of  a  great  conflagration  is  still  i)resent  to  the 
writer's  mind,  and  that  110  one  helps  (or  saves)  thee  means  specifically  no  one 
quenches  thee.  The  figurative  dress  would  rather  seem  to  have  been  laid 
aside,  in  order  to  express  the  naked  truth  more  plainly. 


CHAPTER    XLVIII. 

From  his  digression  with  respect  to  the  causes  and  effects  of  the  catas- 
trophe of  Babylon,  the  Prophet  now  returns  to  his  more  general  themes, 
and  winds  up  the  first  great  division  of  the  Later  Prophecies  by  a  reiteration 
of  the  same  truths  and  arguments  which  run  through  the  previous  portion  of 
it,  with  some  variations  and  additions  which  will  be  noticed  in  the  proper 
place.  The  disproportionate  prominence  given  to  the  Babylonish  exile  and 
the  liberation  from  it,  in  most  modern  expositions  of  the  passage,  has  pro- 
duced the  same  confusion  and  the  same  necessity  of  assuming  arbitrary 
combinations  and  transitions,  as  in  other  cases  which  have  been  already 
stated.  The  length  to  which  this  false  hypothesis  has  influenced  the  prac- 
tice of  interpreters  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact,  that  one  of  the  most  recent 
English  writers  describes  this  chapter  as  -''renewed  assurances  of  restoration 
from  Babylon."  This  is  less  surprising  in  the  present  case,  however ; 
because  the  Prophet,  in  the  close  as  in  the  opening  of  this  first  book,  does 
accommodate  his  language  to  the  feelings  and  condition  of  the  Jews  in  exile, 
though  the  truths  which  he  inculcates  are  still  of  a  general  and  compre- 
hensive nature. 

Although  Israel  is  God's  chosen  and  peculiar  people,  he  is  in  himself 
unworthy  of  the  honour  and  unfaithful  to  the  trust,  vs.  J,  2.  Former  pre- 
dictions had  been  uttered  expressly  to  prevent  his  ascribing  the  event  to 
other  gods,  vs.  3-5.  For  the  same  reason  new  predictions  will  be  uttered 
now,  of  events  which  have  never  been  distinctly  foretold,  vs.  6-8.  God's 
continued  favour  to  his  people  has  no  reference  to  merit  upon  their  part,  but 
is  the  fruit  of  his  own  sovereign  mercy  and  intended  to  promote  his  own 
designs,  vs.  9— IL  [!e  again  asserts  his  own  exclusive  deity,  as  proved  by 
the  creation  of  the  world,  by  the  prediction  of  events  still  future,  and  espe- 
cially by  the  raising  up  of  Cyrus,  as  a  promised  instrument  to  execute  his 
purpose,  vs.  12-16.     The  sufierings  of  Israel   are   the  fiuit  of  his  own  sin, 


152  CHAPTERXLVIII. 

his  prosperity  and  glory  of  God's  sovereign  grace,  vs.  17-19.  The  book 
closes  as  it  opened  with  a  promise  of  deliverance  from  exile,  accompanied, 
in  this  case,  by  a  solemn  limitation  of  the  promise  to  its  proper  objects, 
vs.  20-22. 

It  is  evident  that  these  are  the  same  elements  which  enter  into  all  the 
Later  Prophecies,  so  far  as  we  have  yet  examined  them,  and  that  these 
elements  are  here  combined  in  very  much  the  usual  proportions,  although 
not  in  precisely  the  same  shape  and  order.  The  most  novel  feature  of  this 
chapter  is  the  fulness  with  which  one  principal  design  of  prophecy,  and  the 
connexion  between  Israel's  sufferings  and  his  sins,  are  stated. 

The  confidence  with  which  the  most  dissimilar  hypotheses  may  be  main- 
tained when  resting  upon  no  detenninate  or  valid  principle,  is  forcibly  exem- 
plified in  this  case  by  the  fact,  that  Vitringa  and  Schmidius  both  divide  the 
chapter  into  two  parts  relating  to  two  different  periods  of  history  ;  but  the 
former  applies  vs.  1—1 1  to  the  Jews  of  Isaiah's  time,  and  vs.  12—22  to  those 
of  the  captivity;  while  the  latter  applies  vs.  1—1 5  to  the  Jews  of  the  captivity 
and  vs.  16-22  to  those  contemporary  with  our  Saviour.  This  divergency 
both  as  to  the  place  of  the  dividing  line,  and  as  to  the  chronological  relation 
of  the  parts,  is  a  sufficient  proof  that  the  hypothesis,  common  to  both,  of  a 
reference  to  two  successive  periods,  is  altogether  arbitrary,  and  with  equal 
reason  might  be  varied  indefinitely  by  supposing  that  the  first  part  treats 
of  the  apostolic  age  and  the  second  of  the  period  of  the  reformation,  or 
the  first  of  the  middle  ages  and  the  last  of  the  millennium,  or  the  first  of 
the  French  Revolution  and  the  last  of  the  Day  of  Judgment.  The  only 
safe  assumption  is  that  the  chapter  contains  general  truths  with  special 
illustrations  and  examples. 

V.  1.  Hear  this,  not  exclusively  what  follows  or  what  goes  before,  hut 
this  whole  series  of  arguments  and  exhortations.  This  is  a  formula  by  which 
Isaiah  frequently  resumes  and  continues  his  discourse.  Because  the  verb 
occurs  at  the  beginning  of  ch.  46  :  12,  Hitzig  infers  that  these  two  chapters 
originally  came  together,  and  that  the  forty-seventh  was  afterwards  introduced 
between  them  ;  which  seems  frivolous. —  Oh  house  of  Jacob,  the  {inen) 
called  by  the  name  of  Israel,  a  periphrasis  for  Israelites  or  members  of  the 
ancient  church. — And  from  the  waters  of  Judah  they  have  come  out.  By 
an  easy  transition,  of  perpetual  occurrence  in  Isaiah,  the  construction  is 
continued  in  the  third  person  ;  as  if  the  Prophet,  after  addressing  them 
directly,  had  proceeded  to  deseiibe  them  to  the  by-standers.  The  people, 
by  a  natural  figure,  are  described  as  streams  from  the  fountain  of  Judah. 
(Compare  eh.  .51  :  1  and  Ps.  68  :  27.)  Gesenius  and  other  German  writers 
fasten  on  this  mention  of  Judah  as  a  national  progenitor,  as  betraying  a  later 
date  of  composition  than  the  days  of  Isaiah.     But  this  kind  of  reasoning 


CHAPTERXLVIII.  ]53 

proceeds  upon  the  shallow  and  erroneous  supposition  that  the  application  of 
this  name  to  the  whole  people  was  the  result  of  accidental  causes  at  a  com- 
paratively recent  period,  whereas  it  forms  part  of  a  change  designed  from 
the  beginning,  and  developed  by  a  gradual  process,  through  the  whole  course 
of  their  history.  Even  in  patriarchal  times  the  pre-eminence  of  Judah  was 
determined.  From  him  the  Messiah  was  expected  to  descend  (Gen.  49:10). 
To  him  the  first  rank  was  assigned  in  the  exodus,  the  journey  through  the 
desert,  and  the  occupation  of  the  promised  land.  In  his  line  the  royal 
power  was  first  permanently  established.  To  him,  though  deserted  by  five- 
sixths  of  the  tribes,  the  honours  and  privileges  of  the  theocracy  were  still 
continued  ;  so  that  long  before  the  Babylonish  exile  or  the  downfal  of  the 
kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  the  names  of  Israel  and  Judah  were  convertible, 
not  as  political  distinctions,  but  as  designations  of  the  chosen  people,  the 
theocracy,  the  ancient  church.  In  this  sense  Israelite  and  Jew  were  as 
really  synonymous  when  Isaiah  wrote,  as  they  are  now  in  common  par- 
lance.—  Those  sioearing  by  the  name  of  Jehovah,  i.  e.  swearing  by  him  as 
their  God,  and  thereby  not  only  acknowledging  his  deity,  but  solemnly 
avouching  their  relation  to  him.  (See  above,  on  ch.  45  :  23.) — And  of  the 
God  of  Israel  make  mention,  not  in  conversation  merely,  but  as  a  religious 
act,  implying  public  recognition  of  his  being  and  authority,  in  which  sense 
the  same  Hebrew  phrase  with  unimportant  variations  in  its  form  is  frequently 
used  elsewhere.  (For  examples  of  the  very  form  which  here  occurs,  see 
Josh.  23  :  7.  Ps.  20  :  8.  45  :  18.) — Not  in  truth  and  not  in  righteousness, 
uprightness,  sincerity.  It  is  not  necessary  to  infer  from  these  words,  that 
the  Prophet's  language  is  addressed  to  a  distinct  class  of  the  Jews,  or  to  the 
Jews  of  any  one  exclusive  period,  his  own,  or  that  of  the  captivity,  or  that 
of  Christ.  The  clause  is  an  indirect  reiteration  of  the  doctrine  so  con- 
tinually taught  throughout  these  prophecies,  and  afterwards  repeated  in  this 
very  chapter,  that  God's  choice  of  Israel  and  preservation  of  him  was  no 
proof  of  merit  upon  his  part,  nor  even  an  act  of  mere  compassion  upon 
God's  part,  but  the  nece  sary  means  to  an  appointed  end.  The  reference 
therefore  here  is  not  so  much  to  individual  hypocrisy  or  unbelief,  as  to  the 
general  defect  of  worthiness  or  merit  in  the  body.  Some,  supposing  the 
whole  emphasis  to  rest  upon  this  last  clause,  understand  what  goes  before 
as  descriptive  of  outward  profession  and  pretension,  and  for  that  reason  give 
to  the  passive  participle  0"^N"^p3  the  reflexive  sense  of  calling  themselves ; 
which  is  unnecessary  and  without  analogy  in  the  other  terms  of  the  descrip- 
tion. They  were  really  called  by  the  name  of  Israel,  and  that  not  only  by 
themselves  and  one  another,  but  by  God.  Almost  equally  erroneous,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  llitzig's  supi)osition,  that  this  last  clause  is  an  obiter  dictum 
not  essential  to  the  sense.  Both  parts  are  equally  essential,  the  description 
of  the  Jews  as  the  chosen  people  of  Jehovah,  and  the  denial  of  their  merit  ; 


154  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  V  I  I  I . 

for  the  error  into  which  they  were  continually  fulling  was  the  error  of  sacri- 
ficing one  of  these  great  doctrines  to  the  other,  or  imagining  that  they  were 
incompatible.  It  was  necessary  to  the  Prophet's  [)nrpose  that  the  people 
should  never  forget  either,  but  believe  them  both.  From  all  this  may  be 
readily  inferred  the  shallowness  and  blindness  of  the  "  higher  criticism," 
which  talks  of  the  accumulation  of  descriptive  epithets  in  this  place  as  a 
rhetorical  peculiarity  and  symptomatic  of  a  later  age  ;  whereas  it  is  a  distinct 
enumeration  of  the  theocratical  prerogatives  of  Israel,  and  one  essential  to 
the  writer's  purpose. 

y.  2.  For  from  the  Holy  City  they  arc  called.  The  same  name  is 
given  to  Jerusalem  below  (ch.  51:1),  and  also  in  the  later  books  (Dan. 
9  :  24.  Neh.  12  :  1)  and  the  New  Testament  (Matth.  4  :  5.  27  :  53).  It 
is  so  called  as  the  seat  of  the  true  religion,  the  earthly  residence  of  God, 
and  the  centre  of  the  church.  That  the  reference  is  not  to  mere  locality  is 
plain  from  the  application  of  the  name  to  the  whole  people.  The  "^3  at  the 
beginning  of  this  verse  has  somewhat  perplexed  interpreters.  Cocceius 
makes  it  introduce  the  proof  or  reason  of  the  words  immediately  preceding  : 
'not  In  truth  and  not  in  righteousness,  because  they  call  themselves  after 
the  Holy  Ciiy,'  instead  of  calling  themselves  by  the  name  of  God.  This 
description  would  certainly  be  appropriate  to  ritualists  and  all  who  let  the 
church  usurp  the  place  of  its  great  head.  But  tliis  interpretation  is  pre- 
cluded, as  Vitringa  has  observed,  by  what  immediately  follows,  and  upon 
the  God,  of  Israel  rely,  which  certaiidy  would  not  have  been  adduced  as  a 
proof  of  insincerity  or  even  imperfection.  Some  connect  the  clauses  in  a 
different  manner,  by  giving  "^3  the  sense  o(  although  :  '  not  in  truth  and  not 
in  righteousness,  although  they  are  called  after  the  Holy  City.'  But  the 
sense  thus  obtained  is  dearly  purchased  by  assuming  so  unusual  and  dubious 
a  meaning  of  the  particle.  The  safest  because  the  simplest  course  is  to 
take  it  in  its  ordinary  sense  o{  for,  because,  and  to  regard  it  as  continuing 
the  previous  description,  or  rather  as  resuming  it  after  a  momentary  inter- 
ruption, for  which  reason  /or  Is  used  instead  o[  and.  The  connexion  may 
be  thus  rendered  clear  by  a  paraphrase  :  '  I  speak  to  those  who  bear  the 
name  of  Israel  and  worshi|)  Israel's  God,  however  insincerely  and  imper- 
fectly ;  for  they  are  still  the  chosen  people,  and  as  such  entitled  to  rely 
upon  Jehovah.'  This  last  is  then  descriptive  not  of  a  mere  professed  nor  of 
a  real  yet  presumptuous  reliance,  but  of  the  prerogative  of  Israel  considered 
as  the  church  or  chosen  people,  a  prerogative  not  forfeited  by  their  unfaith- 
fulness, so  long  as  its  continuance  was  necessary  to  the  end  for  which  it  was 
originally  granted.  The  falscinterpretations  of  the  passage  have  arisen  from 
applying  it  directly  to  the  faith  or  unbelief  of  individuals,  In  which  case  there 
appears  to  be  an  incongruity  between  the  parts  of  the  description  ;  but  as 


CHAPTER    XLVIII.  155 

soon  as  we  apply  it  to  the  body,  this  apparent  incongruity  is  clone  away,  it 
being  not  only  consistent  with  Isaiah's  purpose,  but  a  necessary  part  of  it, 
to  hold  up  the  prerogatives  of  Israel  as  wholly  independent  of  all  merit  upon 
their  part. — Jehovah  of  Hosts  (is)  his  name.  These  words  are  added  to 
identify  the  object  of  reliance  more  completely,  as  the  being  who  was  called 
the  God  of  Israel  and  Jehovah  of  Hosts.  At  the  same  time  they  suggest 
the  attributes  implied  in  both  parts  of  the  name.  As  if  he  had  said,  they 
rely  upon  the  God  of  Israel,  whom  they  acknowledge  as  an  independent  and 
eternal  Being,  and  the  Sovereign  of  the  universe. 

V.  3.  The  first  {ox  former  things)  since  then  I  have  declared.  That  is,  I 
prophesied  of  old  the  events  which  have  already  taken  place.  For  the  sense 
of  the  particular  expressions,  see  above  on  ch.  45  :  21.  46  :  10.  There  is  no 
abrupt  transition  here,  as  some  interpreters  assume.  This  verse  asserts  God's 
prescience,  not  absolutely  as  in  other  cases,  but  for  the  purpose  of  explain- 
ing why  he  had  so  carefully  predicted  certain  future  events.  It  can  be  fidly 
understood,  therefore,  only  in  connexion  with  what  goes  before  and  follows. 
— And  out  of  my  mouth  they  loent  forth.  Some  regard  this  as  a  proof  that 
rirJN'i  means  former  prophecies  and  not  events  ;  but  even  the  latter  might 
be  figuratively  said  to  have  gone  out  of  his  mouth,  as  having  been  predicted 
by  him. — And  I  cause  them  to  he  heard,  a  synonymous  expression. — Sud- 
denly I  do  (them)  and  they  come  to  pass.  All  this  is  introductory  to  what 
follows  respecting  the  design  of  prophecy.  The  sense  is  not  simply,  I  fore- 
tell things  to  come,  but  1  foretell  things  to  come  for  a  particular  purpose, 
which  is  now  to  be  explained. 

V.  4.  From  my  knowing.  This  may  either  mean  because  I  knew  or 
since  I  knew,  or  the  last  may  be  included  in  the  first,  as  in  ch.  43  :  4. —  That 
thou  art  hard.  This  is  commonly  considered  an  ellipsis  for  a^-nrp  (Ezek. 
3:7)  or  Ci^ji-'-ni^ip^  (Deut.  9:6),  hard-hearted  or  stiff-necked;  more  proba- 
bly the  latter,  as  the  sense  required  by  the  context  is  not  so  much  that  of 
insensibility  as  that  of  obstinate  perverseness.  The  same  idea  is  ex[)ressed 
still  more  strongly  by  the  following  words,  and  an  iron  sinew  (is)  thy  neck. 
The  substitution  of  bar  for  sineiv,  which  is  elsewhere  the  invariable  sense  of 
T^V  ,  is  not  only  gratuitous,  but  inexact  and  enfeebling. — And  thy  forehead 
brass.  The  hardening  of  the  face  or  forehead,  which  is  sometimes  used  in 
a  good  sense  (e.  g.  ch.  50  :  7),  here  denotes  shameless  persistency  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  truth.  The  allusion  is  not,  as  Vitringa  supposes,  to  the  colour 
of  brass,  but  to  its  hardness,  with  some  reference,  as  Knobel  thinks,  to  the 
habits  of  animals  which  push  or  butt  with  the  forehead. 

V.  5.    Therefore  I  told  thee  long  ago.     This  is  often   the  force  of  the 


156  CHAPTERXLVIII. 

conjunction  and  after  a  conditional  clause  or  sentence.  Because  I  knew 
thee  to  be  such,  and  I  told  thee,  i.  e.  therefore  I  told  thee. — Before  it  comes 
I  have  let  thee  hear  (/V),  lest  thou  saij,  My  idol  did,  them,  i.  e.  did  tlie  things 
before  referred  to  collectively  in  the  singular.  The  Hebrew  word  for  idol, 
from  the  double  meaning  of  its  root,  sugfTests  the  two  ideas  of  an  image  and 
a  torment  or  vexation. — My  graven  image  and  my  molten  image  ordered 
them,  i.  c.  called  them  into  being. — Gousset  takes  "25:  in  the  sense  of  my 
libation  or  drink-offering. 

V.  6.  Thou  hast  heard,  (the  prediction),  sec  all  of  it  (accomplished). 
And  ye  (idolaters  or  idols),  ivill  not  ye  declare,  the  same  word  used  above 
for  the  prediction  of  events,  and  therefore  no  doubt  meaning  here,  will  not  ye 
predict  something  ?  This  is  Hitzig's  explanation  of  the  words  ;  but  most 
interpreters  suppose  the  sense  to  be,  will  you  not  acknowledge  (or  bear 
witness^  that  these  things  were  predicted  by  Jehovah  ?  In  favour  of  the 
first  is  its  taking  T'.^^  in  the  sense  which  it  has  in  the  preceding  verse,  and 
also  the  analogy  of  ch.  41  :  2-2,  23,  where  the  very  same  challenge  is  given 
in  nearly  the  same  form  ;  to  which  may  be  added  the  sudden  change  to  the 
plural  form  and  the  em])hatic  intioduction  of  the  pronoun,  implying  a  new 
object  of  address,  and  not  a  mere  enallage,  because  he  immediately  resumes 
the  address  to  the  people  in  the  singular. — /  have  made  thee  to  hear  new 
things.  He  appeals  not  only  to  the  past  but  to  the  future,  and  thus  does 
what  he  vainly  challenged  them  to  do.  There  is  no  need  of  inquiring  what 
particular  predictions  are  referred  to.  All  that  seems  to  be  intended  is  the 
general  distinction  between  past  and  future,  between  earlier  and  later  pro- 
phecies.— From  now,  henceforth,  after  the  present  time.  It  is  a  curious 
fact  that  HItzig,  who  regards  the  old  interpretation  of  csN;a  (Jess  than 
nothing)  in  ch.  40:  17  as  absurd,  makes  i^J^i"?  in  the  case  before  us  a  com- 
j)arative  expression,  and  translates  the  whole  phrase  newer  than  now,  which 
he  says  is  a  circundocution  for  the  future. — And  (^things)  kept  (in  reserve), 
and  thou  hast  not  known  them,  or  in  our  idiom,  which  thou  hast  not  known. 
Beck,  by  some  unintelligible  process,  reaches  the  conclusion  that  this  verse 
contains  a  perfectly  indisputable  case  o(  vaticinium  post  evcntum. 

V.  7.  JSow  they  are  created  (i.  e.  brought  into  existence  for  the  first 
time)  and  not  of  old,  or  never  before.  The  literal  meaning  of  the  next 
words  is,  and  before  the  day  and  thou  hast  not  heard  them,  J.  D.  Michaelis 
and  some  others  seem  to  understand  this  as  meaning,  one  day  ago  thou  hadst 
not  heard  them  ;  but  this  is  a  German  or  a  Latin  idiom,  wholly  foreign  from 
the  Hebrew  usage.  Others,  with  more  probability,  explain  it  to  mean, 
before  this  day  (or  before  to-day)  thou  hast  never  heard  them,  ti"'  being  put 
by  poetical  license  for  err:  with  the  article.     Gesenius  understands  by  day 


CH  APT  E  R    XL  VI  II.  157 

the  lime  of  the  fulfihnent ;  which  is  not  so  obvious  nor  so  appropriate,  because 
the  prophecy  must  be  made  known  before  it  can  be  verified  by  the  event. 
In  all  tiiese  constructions,  the  i  before  J^^  is  supposed  to  be  the  idiomatic 
sign  of  the  apodosis,  very  frequent  afler  specifications  of  time.  (See  Gen. 
2-2  :  4.)  The  same  reason  is  assigned  as  before  :  Lest  thou  shouldest  say, 
Behold,  1  Icneiv  them.  In  the  last  word  the  feminine  suffix  takes  the  place 
of  the  masculine  in  the  verse  preceding,  equivalent  in  import  to  the  Greek 
or  Latin  neuter. 

V.  8.  ISay,  thou  didst  not  hear  ;  nay,  thou  didst  not  linow.  The  idiom- 
atic form  of  this  sentence  is  not  easily  expressed  in  a  translation,  which,  if  too 
exact,  will  fail  to  show  the  true  connexion.  Having  given  the  perverse- 
ness  of  the  people  as  a  reason  why  they  knew  so  much  by  previous  revela- 
tion, he  now  assigns  it  as  a  reason  why  they  knew  so  little.  These,  although 
at  first  sight  inconsistent  statements,  are  but  varied  aspects  of  the  same 
thing.  God  had  told  them  so  much  beforehand,  lest  they  should  ascribe 
the  event  to  other  causes.  He  had  told  them  no  more,  because  he  knew 
that  they  would  wickedly  abuse  his  favour.  In  a  certain  sense  and  to  a 
certain  extent,  it  was  true  that  they  had  heard  and  known  these  things 
beforehand.  In  another  sense,  and  beyond  that  extent,  it  was  equally  true 
that  they  had  neither  heard  nor  known  them.  This  seems  to  be  the  true 
force  of  the  c^.  It  was  true  that  they  had  heard,  but  it  was  also  true  that 
they  had  not  heard.  The  strict  sense  of  the  clause  is,  likewise  thou  hadst 
not  heard,  likewise  thou  hadst  not  known  ;  but  as  this  form  of  expression  is 
quite  foreign  from  our  idiom,  nay  may  be  substituted,  not  as  a  synonyme. 
but  an  equivalent.  The  yea  of  the  common  version  fails  to  indicate  the 
true  connexion,  by  suggesting  the  idea  of  a  climax  rather  than  that  of  an 
antithesis,  of  something  more  rather  than  of  something  different. — Likewise 
of  old  (or  beforehand)  thine  ear  was  not  open,  literally,  did  not  open,  the 
Hebrew  usage  coinciding  with  the  English  in  giving  to  this  verb  both  a 
transitive  and  intransitive  sense.  (For  another  clear  example  of  the  latter, 
see  below,  ch.  60;  11  )  Vitringa  understands  the  whole  of  this  first  clause 
as  meaning  that  they  would  not  hear  or  know,  but  stopped  their  ears  and 
minds  against  the  revelation  which  was  offered  to  them.  For  this  supposi- 
tion he  assigns  a  reason  that  is  really  conclusive  on  the  other  side,  viz.  that 
the  last  clause  describes  them  as  treacherous  and  disloyal,  which  he  says 
would  be  unjust  if  they  had  had  no  revelation  to  abuse.  But  this  argument 
proceeds  upon  a  false  view  as  to  the  connexion  of  the  clauses.  It  supposes 
the  first  to  give  a  reason  for  the  last,  whereas  the  last  gives  a  reason  for  the 
first.  The  sense  is  not,  that  because  they  would  not  hear  or  know  what 
was  revealed,  God  denounced  them  as  traitors  and  apostates  ;  but  that 
because  they  were  traitors  and  apostates,  he  would  not  allow  them  to  hear 


153  C  H  A  PT  E  R    XL  VIII. 

or  know  the  things  in  question.  This  construction  is  required  by  the  "3 
(^because)  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  clause  ;  by  the  words  Ikneio,  which, 
on  the  other  supposition,  are  unmeaning  ;  and  by  the  form  I'-'r",  which 
cannot,  without  arl)itrary  violence,  have  any  other  sense  here  but  the  strict 
one  of  the  future,  or  of  some  tense  involving  the  idea  of  futurity. — /  l^noiv 
thou  ivilt  (or  /  Icneiv  thou  looulJcst)  act  very  treachcroushj.  Lowth 
supposes  the  emphatic  repetition  of  the  verb  to  express  certainty  rather  than 
intensity,  and  both  may  be  included,  i.  e.  both  would  perhaps  be  unavoid- 
ably suggested  by  this  form  of  expression  to  a  Hebrew  reader.  Beck's 
tiiumphant  charge  against  the  writer  of  the  "  naivest  self-contradiction," 
proceeds  upon  the  false  assumption  that  the  conquest  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus 
is  the  chief  or  rather  the  sole  subject  of  the  prophecy,  an  error  which  has 
been  already  more  than  once  exposed. — And  apostate  (rebel,  or  deserter) 
from  the  ivomb  ivas  called  to  thee,  i.  e.  this  name  was  used  in  calling  thee, 
or  thou  wast  called.  Besides  the  idiom  in  the  syntax,  there  is  here  another 
instance  of  the  use  of  the  verb  call  or  name  to  express  the  real  character. 
They  were  so  called,  i.  e.  they  might  have  been  so,  they  deserved  to  be  so. 
(See  above,  ch.  1  :  2G,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  18.) — Here,  as  in  ch. 
42:2,  24,  most  interpreters  explain  the  ivomb  as  meaning  Egypt;  and 
Jerome  carries  this  idea  so  far  as  to  paraphrase  the  words  thus,  quando  de 
j^gypfo  liberatus,  quasi  mco  ventre  conceptus  cs.  In  all  the  cases,  it  seems 
far  more  natural  to  understand  this  trait  of  the  description  as  belonging 
rather  to  the  sign  than  the  thing  signified,  as  representing  no  specific  circum- 
stance of  time  or  place  in  the  history  of  Israel,  but  simply  the  infancy  or 
birth  of  the  ideal  person  substituted  for  him. 

V.  9.  For  viy  namc^s  sake.  A  ben  Ezra  understands  this  to  mean,  for 
the  sake  of  my  name  by  which  ye  are  called  ;  but  most  interpreters  explain 
it  as  an  equivalent  but  stronger  expression  than  for  my  own  sake,  for  the 
sake  of  the  revelation  which  I  have  already  made  of  my  own  attributes.  This 
explanation  agrees  well  with  the  language  of  v.  11  below. — I  wi/l  defer  my 
anger.  Literally,  j3?-oZon^  it ;  but  this  would  be  equivocal  in  English.  To 
avoid  the  equivoque,  Vitringa  adopts  the  absurd  translation,  I  will  lengthen 
(or  prolong)  my  nose,  which  he  explains  by  saying  that  a  long  flice  is  a  sign 
of  clemency  or  mildness,  and  a  short  or  contracted  face  of  anger, — an  opin- 
ion which  appears  to  have  as  little  foundation  in  physiognomy  as  in  etymo- 
logy. It  seems  most  probable  that  v^x  anger  and  c^EX  the  nostrils  are  at 
most  collateral  derivatives  from  v]?^  to  breathe.  The  common  version,  / 
will  defer  my  anger,  is  approved  by  the  latest  writers,  and  confirmed  not 
only  by  our  familiar  use  oriong  and  slow,  in  certain  applications,  as  convert- 
ible terms,  but  also  by  the  unequivocal  analogy  of  the  Greek  fiuxQoOvftog 
and  the  Latin  longanimis. — And  {for)  my  praise  I  will  restrain  (it)  towards 


CHAPTERXLVIII.  I59 

thee.  Praise  is  here  the  parallel  to  name,  and  may  be  governed  by  "j?^^ 
repeated  from  the  other  clause.  The  more  obvious  construction,  which 
would  make  it  dependent  on  the  following  verb,  is  forbidden  by  the  accents, 
and  yields  no  coherent  sense.  Gesenius  makes  S'l^hx  reflexive,  or  at  least 
supplies  the  reflexive  pronoun  after  it  (I  refrain  myself);  but  it  is  simpler 
to  assume  the  same  object  (niy  torath)  in  both  clauses. — The  last  words  of 
the  verse  express  the  effect  to  be  produced,  so  as  not  to  cut  thee  off,  or 
destroy  thee. 

V.  10.  Behold  I  have  melted  thee.  This  is  the  original  meaning  of  the 
word;  but  it  is  commonly  applied  to  tbe  smelting  of  metals,  and  may  there- 
fore be  translated  proved  or  tried  thee. — And  not  with  silver.  Some  read 
^0=3  (as  silver),  and  others  take  the  2  itself  as  a  particle  of  comparison,  or 
bring  out  substantially  the  same  sense  by  rendering  it  with  (i.  e.  in  company 
with)  silver,  or  by  means  of  the  same  process.  This  is  explained  by  Hitzio- 
strictly  as  denoting  that  he  had  not  literally  melted  them  like  silver,  but  only 
metaphorically  in  the  furnace  of  affliction,  an  assurance  no  more  needed 
here  than  in  any  other  case  of  figurative  language.  Apart  from  these  inter- 
pretations, whicb  assume  the  sense  like  silver,  the  opinions  of  interpreters 
have  been  divided  chiefly  between  two-  The  first  of  these  explains  the 
Prophet's  words  to  mean,  riot  for  silver  (or  money),  but  gratuitously.  This 
is  certainly  the  meaning  of  CiGra  in  a  number  of  places  ;  but  it  seems  to  be 
entirely  inappropriate  when  speaking  of  affliction,  which  is  rather  aggravated 
than  relieved  by  the  idea  of  its  being  gratuitous,  i.  e.  for  nothin<r.  The 
other  explanation,  and  the  one  now  commonly  adopted,  takes  the  sense  to 
be,  not  with  silver  (i.  e.  pure  metal)  as  the  result  of  the  process.  This 
agrees  well  with  the  context,  which  makes  the  want  of  merit  on  the  part  of 
Israel  continually  prominent.  It  also  corresponds  exactly  to  the  other 
clause,  I  have  chosen  thee  (not  in  wealth,  or  power,  or  honour,  but)  in  the 
furnace  of  affliction.  The  explanation  of  "'P'^ns  as  synonymous  with  "^Pisns 
is  entirely  gratuitous.  There  is  no  word  the  sense  of  which  is  more  deter- 
minately  fixed  by  usage.  The  reason  given  by  Gesenius  for  making  j^fove 
or  try  the  primary  meaning  of  this  verb,  without  a  single  instance  to  establish 
it,  is  the  extraordinary  one  that  trial  must  precede  choice,  which  assumes 
the  very  question  in  dispute,  viz.  that  ~n3  means  to  try  at  all,  a  fact  which 
cannot  be  sustained  by  Aramean  analogies  in  the  teeth  of  an  invariable 
Hebrew  usage.  But  even  if  the  method  of  arriving  at  this  sense  were  less 
objectionable  than  it  is,  the  sense  itself  would  still  be  less  appropriate  and 
expressive  than  the  common  one.  I  have  proved  thee  in  the  furnace  of 
affliction,  means  I  have  afflicted  thee  ;  but  this  is  saying  even  less  than  the 
first  clause,  whatever  sense  may  there  be  put  upon  ^osa.  It  is  not  very 
likely  that  the  Prophet  simply  meant  to  say,  I  have  afflicted  thee  in  vain,  I 


160  CHAPTER    XLVII  I. 

have  ajjllcled  thee.  It  is  certainly  more  probable  and  more  in  keeping  with 
the  context  and  his  whole  design  to  understand  him  as  saying,  I  have  found 
no  merit  in  thee,  and  have  chosen  thee  in  the  extreme  of  degradation  and 
affliction.  If  the  furnace  of  affliction  was  designed  to  have  a  distinct 
historical  meaning,  it  probably  refers  not  to  Babylon  but  Egypt,  which  is 
repeatedly  called  an  iron  furnace.  This  would  agree  exactly  with  the 
representations  elsewhere  made  respecting  the  election  of  Israel  in  Egypt. 

V.  1 1.  For  my  oicn  sake,  for  my  own  sake,  I  ivill  do  what  is  to  be  done. 
This  is  commonly  restricted  to  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  exile;  but 
this  specific  application  of  the  promise  is  not  made  till  afterwards.  The 
terms  are  comprehensive  and  contain  a  statement  of  the  general  doctrine,  as 
the  sum  of  the  whole  argument,  that  what  Jehovah  does  for  his  own 
people,  is  in  truth  done  not  for  any  merit  upon  their  part,  but  to  protect  his 
own  divine  honour. — For  how  u-ill  it  be  profaned  ]  This  may  either  mean, 
How  greatly  would  it  be  profaned  !  or,  How  can  I  suffer  it  to  be  profaned? 
Gesenius  anticipates  honour  from  the  other  clause  ;  but  most  interpreters 
make  7iamc  the  subject  of  the  verb,  a  combination  which  occurs  in  several 
other  places.  (See  Lev.  18:21.  1 9  :  22.  Ez.  36  :  ^O.—And  my  glory  (or 
honour)  to  another  iviil  I  not  give,  as  he  must  do  if  his  enemies  eventually 
triumph  over  his  own  people.  The  same  words  with  the  same  sense  occur 
above  in  ch.  42 :  8. 

V.  1 2.  Hearken  unto  me,  oh  Jacob,  and  Israel  my  called  ;  lam  He,  I  am 
the  First,  also  I  the  last.  A  renewed  assurance  of  his  ability  and  willing- 
ness to  execute  his  promises,  the  latter  being  implied  in  the  phrase  my  called. 
i.  e.  specially  elected  by  me  to  extraordinary  privileges.  The  threefold 
repetition  of  the  pronoun  /  is  supposed  by  some  of  the  older  writers  to  contain 
an  allusion  to  the  Trinity,  of  which  interpretation  Vitringa  wisely  says  : 
quam  meditationem  hoc  loco  non  urgto  neque  refello.  I  am  He  is  understood 
by  the  later  writers  to  mean  I  am  the  Being  in  question,  or,  it  is  I  that  am 
the  First  and  the  Last.  The  older  writers  give  the  ^<'l^  a  more  emphatic 
sense,  as  meaning  He  that  really  exists. — Lowth  supplies  my  servant  after 
Jacob,  on  the  authority  of  one  manuscript  and  two  old  editions.  On  like 
authority  he  changes  vi^  into  the  simple  conjunctive  i,  which  he  says  is 
more  proper. — Compare  with  this  verse  ch.  41  :  4.  43  :  10.  44 :  6. 

V.  13.  Also  my  hand  founded  the  earth,  and  m.y  right  hand  spanned  the 
heavens.  The  force  of  the  qx  seems  to  be  this  :  not  only  am  I  an  Eternal 
Being,  but  the  Creator  of  the  heavens.  Hand  and  right  hand  is  merely  a 
poetical  or  rhetorical  variation. — The  Septuagint  renders  i^ns:?  iarsgrnae, 
by  assimilation  to  the  parallel  term  founded.     The  Vulgate  has  mensa  est, 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  VI  I  I.  161 

which  is  approved  by  Kimchi.  The  Chaldee  suspended,  which  may  be 
taken  either  strictly  or  in  tlie  sense  of  balanced,  iveighed.  Aben  Ezra, 
followed  by  most  modern  writers,  makes  it  mean  expanded ;  which  explana- 
tion is  confirmed  by  the  Syriac  analogy,  and  by  the  parallel  passao-e  oh. 
51  :  13,  where  the  founding  of  the  earth  is  connected  with  the  spreadinf  of 
the  skies,  and  the  latter  expressed  by  the  unambiguous  word  n'jis.  Luzzatto 
points  out  a  like  combination  of  the  derivative  nouns  in  1  Kings  7  :  9. — 
Vitringa  construes  '3X  N'^p  like  an  ablative  absolute  in  Latin  (me  vocante), 
and  the  same  sense  is  given,  with  a  difference  of  form,  in  the  English  Version 
(i^hen  I  call).  But  in  Hebrew  usage,  the  pronoun  and  participle  thus 
combined  are  employed  to  express  present  and  continuous  action,  1  (am) 
calling,  i.  e.  I  habitually  call.  The  words  are  not  therefore  naturally 
applicable  to  the  original  creation  (7  called),  as  Cocceius,  Gesenius,  and 
others  explain  them,  but  must  either  be  referred,  with  Kimchi,  to  the  constant 
exertion  of  creative  power  in  the  conservation  of  the  universe,  or,  with 
Vitringa  and  most  later  writers,  to  the  authority  of  the  Creator  over  his 
creatures  as  his  instruments  and  servants.  I  call  to  them  (summon  them), 
and  they  ivill  stand  up  together  (i.  e.  all  without  exception).  This  agrees 
well  with  tlje  usage  of  the  phrase  to  stand  before,  as  expressing  the  attend- 
ance of  the  servant  on  his  master.  (See  for  example  1  Kings  17  :  I.)  The 
same  two  ideas  of  creation  and  service  are  connected  in  Ps.  119:90,  91. 
The  exclusive  reference  of  the  whole  verse  to  creation,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  favoured  by  the  analogy  of  Rom.  4:17  and  Col.  1  :  17. — For  the  differ- 
ent expressions  here  used,  see  above,  ch.  40 :  22.  42  :  5.  44  :  24.  45 :  12. 

V.  14.  Assemble  yourselves,  all  of  you,  and  hear!  The  object  of 
address  is  Israel,  according  to  the  common  supposition,  but  more  probably 
the  heathen.  Who  among  them,  i.  e.  the  false  gods  or  their  prophets,  hath 
declared  (predicted)  these  things,  the  whole  series  of  events  which  had  been 
cited  to  demonstrate  the  divine  foreknowledge.  Jehovah  loves  him,  i.  e, 
Israel,  and  to  show  his  love,  he  will  do  his  pleasure  (execute  his  purpose) 
in  Babylon,  and  his  (Jehovah's)  arm  (shall  be  upon)  the  Chaldees.  This 
explanation,  which  is  given  by  J.  H,  Michaelis,  seems  to  answer  all  the 
conditions  of  the  text  and  context.  Most  interpreters,  however,  make  the 
clause  refer  to  Cyrus,  and  translate  it  thus  :  '  he  whom  Jehovah  loves  shall  do 
his  pleasure  in  Babylon,  and  his  arm  (i.  e.  exercise  his  power  or  execute 
his  vengeance)  on  the  Chaldees.'  Another  construction  of  the  last  words 
makes  them  mean  that '  he  (Cyrus)  shall  be  his  arm  (i.  e.  the  arm  of  Jehovah) 
against  the  Chaldees.'  But  for  this  use  of  arm  there  is  no  satisfactory  analogy. 
Kocher  supposes  it  to  mean  that  '  the  Chaldees  (shall  be)  his  arm,'  in  allu- 
sion to  the  aid  which  Cyrus  received  from  Gobryas  and  Gadates,  as  related 
in  the  fourth  book  of  the  Cyropaedia.     Vitringa  is  inclined  to  assume  an 

11 


16-2  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  V  I  I  I. 

aposiopesis  and  to  read,  'his  arm  (shall  conquer  or  destroy)  the  Chaldees.' 
Aben  Ezra  refers  both  the  suffixes  to  Cyrus,  who  is  then  said  to  do  his  own 
pleasure  upon  Babylon. — Others  refer  both  to  God  (his  pleasure  and  his 
arm)  ;  but  most  interpreters  take  a  middle  course,  referring  one  to  each. 

V.  15.  /,  /,  have  spoken  (i.  e.  predicted)  ;  /  have  also  called  him 
(effectually  by  my  providence)  ;  I  have  brought  him  (into  existence,  or  into 
public  view)  ;  and  he  prospered  his  ivay.  The  reference  of  the  last  verb  to 
Jehovah  as  its  subject  involves  a  harsh  enallage  personae,  which  Vitringa 
and  others  avoid  by  making  the  verb  neuter  or  intransitive,  Ais  z^oj/ prospers. 
But  rp.'^  is  feminine,  not  only  in  general  usage,  but  in  combination  with  this 
very  verb  (Judges  18  :  5).  The  safe  rule  is,  moreover,  to  give  Hiphil  an 
active  sense  wherever  it  is  possible.  The  true  solution  is  to  make  Cyrus  or 
Israel  the  subject,  and  to  understand  the  phrase  as  meaning,  he  makes  his 
own  way  prosperous,  i.  e.  he  prospers  in  it.  (Compare  Ps.  1  :  3,  and 
Hengstenberg's  Commentary,  Vol.  I.  p.  17.) 

V.  16.  Draw  near  unto  me!     As  Jehovah  is  confessedly  the  speaker 
in  the  foregoing  and  the  following  context,  and  as  similar  language  is  ex- 
pressly ascribed   to  him   in  ch.  45:  19,  Calvin  and  Gesenius  regard  it  as 
most  natural  to  make  these  his  words  likewise,  assuming  a  transition  in  the 
last  clause  from  Jehovah  to  the  Prophet,  who  there  describes  himself  as  sent 
by  Jehovah.     Instead  of  this   distinction    between   the   clauses,  Jarchi  and 
Rosenmiiller  suppose  the  person  of  the  Prophet  and  of  God  to  be  confused 
in  both.     Hitzig  and   Knobel  follow   some   of  the  other  Jewish  writers  in 
making  the  whole  verse  the  words  of  Isaiah.     Vitringa  and  Henderson  agree 
with  Athanasius,  Augustin,  and  other  Fathers,  who  reconcile  the  clauses  by 
making  Christ  the  speaker.     Those  who  believe  that  he  is  elsewhere  intro- 
duced in  this  same  book,  can   have  no  difficulty  in   admitting  a  hypothesis, 
which  reconciles  the  divine  and  human  attributes  referred  to  in  the  sentence, 
as  belonging  to  one  person. — Hear  this  ;  not  from  the  beginning  in  secret 
have  I  spoken.     See  above,  on  ch.  45:  19. — From  the  time  of  its  being. 
OEcolampadius  refers  this  to  the  eternal  counsel  of  Jehovah  ;  but  Vitringa 
well  observes  that  usage  has  appropriated  n^n  to  express  the  execution  not 
the  formation  of  the  divine  purpose.     Brentius  supposes  an  allusion  to  the 
exodus  from  Egypt  and  a  comparison   between  it  and  the  deliverance  from 
Babylon  ;  but  this   is  wholly  fanciful  and  arbitrary.     The  rabbins,  with  as 
little  reason,  make  it  mean,  since  the  beginning  of  my  ministry,  since  I 
assumed  the  prophetic  office.     But  most  interpreters  refer  the  suffix  (t/)  to 
the  raising  up  of  Cyrus  and  the  whole  series  of  events  connected  with  it, 
which  formed  the  subject  of  the   prophecies  in  question.     (See  above,  ch. 
46 :  11 .) — Since  these  events  began  to  take  place,  1  tvas  there.     Lovvth 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  V  I  I  1 .  163 

proposes  to  read  cb  and  to  translate  tlie  phrase,  Iliad  decreed  it.  But  the 
obvious  analogy  of  Prov.  8  :  27  is  of  itself  sufficient  to  establish  the  masoretic 
reading.  Those  who  regard  these  as  the  words  of  Isaiah,  understand  them 
to  mean  that  he  had  predicted  them,  or  as  Knobel  exjoresses  it,  that  he  was 
present  as  a  public  speaker.  Those  who  refer  the  words  to  the  Son  of  God 
specifically,  make  the  verse  substantially  identical  in  meaning  with  the  one 
in  Proverbs  just  referred  to,  which  the  church  in  every  age  has  been  very 
much  of  one  mind  in  applying  to  the  second  person  of  the  Godhead  as  the 
hypostatical  wisdom  of  the  Father.  Those  who  take  the  words  more 
generally  as  the  language  of  Jehovah,  understand  him  to  declare  that  these 
events  had  not  occurred  without  his  knowledge  or  his  agency  :  that  he  was 
present,  cognizant,  and  active,  in  the  whole  affair. — Thus  far  this  last 
hypothesis  must  be  allowed  to  be  the  simplest  and  most  natural.  The 
difficulties  which  attend  it  arise  wholly  from  what  follows. — And  now. 
This  seems  to  be  in  evident  antithesis  to  (lixiig  or  to  •^rjji'^'t)  r>?2  ,  the  latter 
being  the  most  obvious  because  it  is  the  nearest  antecedent. —  The  Lord 
Jehovah  hath  sent  tne.  Those  w  ho  regard  Isaiah  as  the  speaker  in  the  whole 
verse  understand  this  clause  to  mean,  that  as  he  had  spoken  before  by  divine 
authority  and  inspiration,  he  did  so  still.  Those  who  refer  the  first  clause 
simply  to  Jehovah,  without  reference  to  personal  distinctions,  are  under  the 
necessity  of  here  assuming  a  transition  to  the  language  of  the  Prophet 
himself.  The  third  hypothesis,  which  makes  the  Son  of  God  the  speaker, 
understands  both  clauses  in  their  strict  sense  as  denoting  his  eternity  on  one 
hand  and  his  mission  on  the  other.  The  sending  of  the  Son  by  the  Father 
is  a  standing  form  of  speech  in  Sciipture.  (See  Ex.  23  :  20.  Is.  61  :  1. 
Mai.  3:1.  John  3  :  34.  17:3.  Heb.  3  :  \.)—And  his  Spirit.  It  has  long 
been  a  subject  of  dispute  whether  these  words  belong  to  the  subject  or  the 
object  of  the  verb  hath  sent.  The  English  Version  removes  all  ambiguity 
by  changing  the  collocation  of  the  words  (//te  Lord  God  and  his  Spirit  hath 
sent  me).  The  same  sense  is  given  in  the  Vulgate  (et  spiritus  ejus)  ;  while 
the  coincidence  of  the  nominative  and  accusative  (ro  nvtviia)  makes  the 
Septuagint  no  less  ambiguous  than  the  original.  With  the  Latin  and 
English  agree  Calvin,  Rosenmiiller,  Uiiibreit,  and  Ilendeweik,  Vitiinga, 
Henderson,  and  Knobel  adopt  Origen's  inlerpretalion  (uia/oTirQa  dntaTtilsv  o 
naTr-jQ,  lov  acor/jQa  y.ai  lo  ayiov  nrtvfin).  Gesenius  and  the  other  modern 
Germans  change  the  form  of  expression  by  insprting  the  preposition  with, 
which  however  is  intended  to  represent  the  Spirit  not  as  the  sender  but  as 
one  of  the  things  sent. — The  exegetical  question  is  not  one  of  much  im- 
poitance  ;  because  both  the  senses  yielded  are  consistent  with  the  usage  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  the  ambiguity  may  be  intended  to  let  both  suggest 
themselves.  As  a  grammatical  question,  it  is  hard  to  be  decided  from 
analogy  ;  because,  on  either  supposition,  inn-n  cannot  be  considered  as  holdin* 


164  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  V  I  I  I . 

its  regular  position  in  the  sentence,  but  must  be  regarded  as  an  afterthought. 
The  main  proposition  is,  the  Lord  God  hath  sent  me.  The  supplementary 
expression  and  his  Spirit  may  be  introduced,  without  absurdity  or  any 
violation  of  the  rules  of  syntax,  either  before  the  verb  or  after  it.  Mere 
usage  therefore  leaves  the  question  undecided. — As  little  can  it  be  deter- 
mined by  the  context  or  the  parallelisms.  The  argument,  which  some  urge, 
that  the  Spirit  is  never  said  to  send  the  Son,  takes  for  granted  that  the  latter 
is  the  speaker,  an  assumption  which  precludes  any  inference  from  the  lan- 
guage of  this  clause  in  proof  of  that  position.  Those,  on  llie  other  hand, 
who  consider  these  the  words  of  Isaiah,  argue  in  favour  of  the  other  con- 
struction, that  the  Spirit  is  said  to  send  the  prophets. — On  the  whole  this  may 
be  fairly  represented  as  one  of  the  most  doubtful  questions  of  construction  in 
the  book,  and  the  safest  course  is  either  to  admit  that  both  ideas  were  meant 
to  be  suggested,  although  probably  in  different  degrees,  or  else  to  fall  back 
upon  the  general  rule,  though  liable  to  numberless  exceptions,  that  the 
preference  is  due  to  the  nearest  antecedent  or  to  that  construction  which 
adheres  most  closely  to  the  actual  collocation  of  the  words.  The  applica- 
tion of  this  principle  in  this  case  would  decide  the  doubt  in  favour  of  the 
prevailing  modern  doctrine,  that  Jehovah  had  sent  the  person  speaking  and 
endued  him  with  liis  Spirit,  as  a  necessary  preparation  for  the  work  to  which 
he  was  appointed.  Beck's  ridiculous  assertion,  that  the  writer  is  here  guilty 
of  the  folly  of  appealing  to  his  present  prediction  of  events  already  past  as  a 
proof  of  his  divine  legation,  only  shows  the  falsehood  of  the  current  notion 
that  the  object  of  address  is  the  Jewisli  people  at  the  period  of  the  exile, 
and  its  subject  the  victories  of  Cyrus. 

V.  17.  Thus  saiih  Jehovah,  thy  Redeemer,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel 
(see  the  same  prefatory  formulas  above,  ch.  41  :  14.  43  :  14),  lam  Jehovah 
thy  God  (or  I  Jehovah  am  thy  God),  teaching  thee  to  profit  (or  I,  Jehovah, 
thy  God,  am  teaching  thee  to  profit).  Henderson's  version,  I  teach,  does 
not  convey  the  precise  force  of  the  original,  which  is  expressive  of  continued 
and  habitual  instruction,  and  the  same  remark  applies  to  the  participle  in  the 
other  clause.  To  profit,  i.  e.  to  be  profitable  to  thyself,  to  provide  for  thy 
own  safety  and  prosperity,  or  as  Cocceius  phrases  it,  tibi  consulcre.  There 
seems  to  be  a  reference,  as  Vitringa  suggests,  to  the  unprofitableness  so  often 
charged  upon  false  gods  and  their  worship.  (See  ch.  44  :  10.  45  :  19.  Jer. 
2:  11.) — Leading  thee  (literally,  making  thee  to  tread)  in  the  way  thou 
shah  go.  The  ellipsis  of  the  relative  is  just  the  same  as  in  familiar  English. 
The  future  includes  the  ideas  of  obligation  and  necessity,  without  expressing 
them  directly;  the  precise  sense  of  the  words  is,  the  way  thou  wilt  go  if 
thou  desirest  to  profit.  Augusti  and  Ewald  make  it  present  (goest)  ;  but  this 
is  at  the  same  time  less  exact  and  less  expressive. — J.  H.  Michaelis  under- 


CHAPTER    XLVIIl.  165 

stands  these  as  the  words  of  Christ,  the  teaching  mentioned  as  the  teaching 
of  the  gospel,  the  way  the  way  of  salvation  etc.  To  all  this  the  words  are 
legitimately  applicable,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  they  were  specifically 
meant  to  convey  this  idea  to  the  reader. 

V.  18.  J.  D.  Michaelis  suggests  the  possibility  of  reading  xib,  a  form 
in  which  the  negative  x"?  occurs,  according  to  the  Masora,  thirty-five  times 
in  the  Old  Testament.  The  first  clause  would  then  contain  a  direct  nega- 
tion, thou  hast  not  attended.  In  his  version,  however,  he  adheres  to  the 
masoretic  pointing,  and  translates  the  word  as  a  conditional  particle  (wenn 
du  doch),  which  is  also  recognised  by  Winer  as  the  primary  meaning  of  the 
word,  although  Gesenius  and  Ewald  reverse  the  order  of  deduction,  making 
if  a.  secondary  sense  of  the  optative  particle  oh  that !  The  former  supposi- 
tion may  be  illustrated  by  our  own  colloquial  expression,  if  it  ivere  only  so 
and  so,  implying  a  desire  that  it  were  so.  The  verb  which  follows  is  com- 
monly taken  in  the  wide  sense  of  attending,  that  of  listening  being  looked 
upon  as  a  specific  application  of  it.  Vitringa  here  translates  it,  animum 
advertisses  ;  J.  H.  Michaelis,  with  more  regard  to  usage,  aures  ct  animum. 
It  may  be  questioned,  however,  whether  there  is  any  clear  case  of  its  being 
used  without  explicit  reference  to  hearing.  If  not,  this  must  be  regarded  as 
the  proper  meaning,  and  the  wider  sense  considered  as  implied  but  not 
expressed.  RosenmiiUer,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  and  Knobel,  understand  this 
verb  as  referring  to  the  future  :  Oh  that  thou  ivouldst  hearken  to  my  com- 
mandments !  But  the  only  instance  which  they  cite  of  this  use  of  the  praeter 
(Is.  63:  19),  even  if  it  did  not  admit  (as  it  evidently  does)  of  the  other 
explanation,  could  not  be  set  off  against  the  settled  usage  of  the  language, 
which  refers  *i^  with  the  praeter  to  past  time.  (See  Ewald's  Grammar 
4>605,  and  Nordheimer  >§.  1078.)  Accordingly  Maurer,  De  Wette,  Ewald, 
Umbreit,  and  Gesenius  (though  less  explicitly),  agree  with  the  older  writers 
in  explaining  it  to  mean,  Oh  that  thou  hadst  hearkened  to  my  command- 
ments !  The  objection,  that  this  does  not  suit  the  context,  is  entirely 
unfounded.  Nothing  could  well  be  more  appropriate  at  the  close  of  this 
division  of  the  pr6phecies,  than  this  affecting  statement  of  the  truth,  so 
frequently  propounded  in  didactic  form  already,  that  Israel,  although  the 
chosen  people  of  Jehovah,  and  as  such  secure  from  total  ruin,  was  and  was  to 
be  a  sufferer,  not  from  any  want  of  faithfulness  or  care  on  God's  part,  but 
as  the  necessary  fruit  of  his  own  imperfections  and  corruptions. — The  Vav 
conversive  introduces  the  apodosis,  and  is  equivalent  to  then,  as  used  in 
English  for  a  similar  purpose.  Those  who  refer  the  first  clause  to  the  pre- 
sent or  the  future,  give  the  second  the  form  of  the  imperfect  subjunctive, 
then  would  thy  peace  he  like  a  river ;  the  others  more  correctly  that  of  the 
pluperfect,  then  had  thy  jfcace  been  (or  then  icould  thy  peace  have  been)  as 


166  CHAPTERXLVIII. 

a  river.  The  strict  sense  of  the  Hebrew  is  (he  river,  which  Vitringa  and 
others  understand  to  mean  the  Euphrates  in  particular,  with  whose  inunda- 
tions, as  well  as  with  its  ordinary  flow,  the  Prophet's  original  readers  were 
familiar.  It  seems  to  be  more  natural,  liowever,  to  regard  the  article  as 
pointing  out  a  definite  class  of  objects  rather  than  an  individual,  and  none 
the  less  because  the  parallel  expression  is  the  sea,  v\  hich  some,  with  wanton 
violence,  apply  to  the  Euphrates  also. — Peace  is  here  used  in  its  wide  sense 
of  prosperity  ;  or  rather  peace,  in  the  restricted  sense,  is  used  to  represent  all 
kindred  and  attendant  blessings.  The  parallel  term  righteousness  adds 
moral  good  to  natural,  and  supplies  the  indispensable  condition  without 
which  the  other  cannot  be  enjoyed.  After  the  various  affectations  of  the 
modern  German  writers  in  distorting  this  and  similar  expressions,  it  is  refresh- 
ing to  find  Ewald,  and  even  Hendewerk,  returning  to  the  old  and  simple 
version.  Peace  and  Righteousness.  The  ideas  suggested  by  the  figure  of  a 
river,  are  abundance,  perpetuity,  and  freshness,  to  which  the  waves  of  the 
sea  add  those  of  vastness,  depth,  and  continual  succession. 

V.  19.  The7i  should  have  been  like  the  sand  thy  sted,  a  common  scrip- 
tural expression  for  great  multitude,  with  special  reference,  in  this  case,  to 
the  promise  made  to  Abraham  and  Jacob  (Gen.  22:  17.  32:  12),  the  partial 
accomplishment  of  which  (2  Sam.  17:11)  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 
thought  here  expressed,  that,  in  the  case  supposed,  it  would  have  been  far 
more  ample  and  conspicuous.  Here,  as  in  ch.  44  :  3,  Knobel  understands  by 
seed  or  offspring  the  individual  members  of  the  nation  as  distinguished  from 
the  aggregate  body.  But  the  image  is  rather  that  of  a  parent  (here  the 
patriarch  Jacob)  and  his  personal  descendants. — And  ihe  issues  (or  off- 
spring^ of  thy  hoivcls  (an  equivalent  expression  to  thy  seed). — Of  the  next 
word  ris't;  there  are  two  interpretations.  The  Targum,  the  Vulgate,  and  the 
rabbins,  give  it  the  sense  of  stones,  pebbles,  gravel,  and  make  it  a  poetica] 
equivalent  to  sand.  J.  D.  JMichaells  and  most  of  the  later  Germans  make  it 
an  equivalent  to  c"sr  witli  a  feminine  termination,  because  figuratively  used. 
The  antithesis  is  then  between  thy  boivels  and  its  bowels,  viz.  those  of  the 
sea  ;  and  the  whole  clause,  supplying  the  ellipsis,  will  read  thus,  the  offspring 
of  thy  bowels  like  {the  offspring  of)  its  bowels,  in  allusion  to  the  vast 
increase  of  fishes,  which  J.  D.  Michaelis  illustrates  by  saying  that  the  whale 
leaves  enough  of  its  natural  food,  the  herring,  to  supply  all  Europe  with  it 
daily.  Ewald  has  returned  to  the  old  inl(M-pretation,  which  he  defends  fiom 
the  charge  of  being  purely  conjectural,  by  tracing  both  t:-^;ia  and  rii'-a  to  the 
radical  idea  of  softness,  the  one  being  ap|)lied  to  the  soft  inward  parts  of  the 
body,  the  other  to  the  soft  fine  ])articles  of  sand  or  gravel.  We  may  then 
refer  the  suffix,  not  to  the  remoter  antecedent  c*; ,  but  to  the  nearer  bin. — 
His  name.     We  must  either  suppose  an  abrupt  transition  from  the  second 


C  H  AP  T  E  R    XL  V  I  I  I.  167 

to  the  third  person,  or  make  seed  the  antecedent  of  the  pronoun,  wiiich  is 
harsh  in  itself,  and  rendered  more  so  by  the  intervening  plural  forms, 
Lowth  as  usual  restores  uniformity  by  reading  thy  name  on  the  authority  of 
the  Septuagint  version.  Vitringa  supposes  a  particular  allusion  to  genealo- 
gical tables  and  the  custom  of  erasing  names  from  them  under  certain 
circumstances.  But  all  the  requisitions  of  the  text  are  answered  by  the 
common  understanding  of  name,  in  such  connexions,  as  equivalent  to 
memory.  The  excision  or  destruction  of  the  name  from  before  God  is 
expressive  of  entire  extermination. — The  precise  sense  of  the  futures  in  this 
clause  is  somewhat  dubious.  Most  interpreters  assimilate  them  to  the  futures 
of  the  forecroins  clause,  as  in  the  English  Version  (should  not  have  been  cat 
off  nor  destroyed^.  Those  who  understand  the  first  clause  as  expressing  a 
wish  in  relation  to  the  present  or  the  future,  make  this  last  a  promise,  either 
absohite  (Jiis  name  shall  not  be  cut  off')  or  conditional  (Ais  7iame  should  not 
be  cut  off').  Nor  is  this  direct  construction  of  the  last  clause  inconsistent 
with  the  old  interpretation  of  the  fiist  ;  as  we  may  suppose  that  the  writer, 
after  wishing  that  the  people  had  escaped  the  strokes  provoked  by  their  ini- 
quities, declares  that  even  now  they  shall  not  be  entirely  destroyed.  This  is 
precisely  the  sense  given  to  the  clause  in  the  Septuagint  (^ol^e  rvv  anolthai), 
and  is  recommended  by  two  considerations  :  first,  the  absence  of  the  Vav 
conversive,  which  in  the  other  clause  may  indicate  an  indirect  construction  ; 
and  secondly,  its  perfect  agreement  with  the  whole  drift  of  the  passage,  and 
the  analogy  of  others  like  it,  where  the  explanation  of  the  sufierings  of  the 
people  as  the  fruit  of  their  own  sin  is  combined  with  a  promise  of  exemption 
from  complete  destruction, 

V.  "20.  Go  forth  from  Babel!  This  is  a  prediction  of  the  deliverance 
from  Babylon,  clothed  in  the  form  of  an  exhortation  to  escape  from  it.  We 
have  no  right  to  assume  a  capricious  change  of  subject,  or  a  want  of  all 
coherence  with  what  goes  before.  The  connexion  may  be  thus  stated. 
After  the  general  reproof  and  promise  of  the  nineteenth  verse,  he  recurs  to 
the  great  example  of  deliverance  so  often  introduced  before.  As  if  he  had 
said,  Israel,  notwithstanding  his  unworthiness,  shall  be  preserved  ;  even  in 
extremity  his  God  will  not  forsake  him  ;  even  from  Babylon  he  shall  be 
delivered  ; — and  then  turning  in  prophetic  vision  to  the  future  exiles,  he 
invites  them  to  come  forth. — Flee  from  the  Chasdim  (or  Chaldees)  !  Vi- 
tringa, Gesenius,  and  most  other  writers,  supply  "'ix  before  c^'^s,  or  regard 
the  latter  as  itself  the  name  of  the  country.  (See  above,  on  ch.  47:  1.) 
But  Maurer  well  says  that  he  sees  no  reason  why  we  may  not  here  retain 
the  proper  meaning  of  the  plural,  and  translate, ^^ee  ye  from  the  Chaldeans, 
which  is  precisely  the  common  English  version  of  the  clause. —  JVith  a  voice 
of  joy.     The  last  word   properly  denotes  a  joyful  shout,  and  not  articulate 


16S  CHAPTER    XLVIII. 

song.  The  whole  phrase  means,  with  the  sound  or  noise  of  such  a  shout. 
It  lias  been  made  a  question  whether  these  words  are  to  be  connected  with 
what  goes  before  or  will)  what  follows.  Gesenius  and  Hendewerk  prefer 
the  former,  most  interpreters  the  latter  ;  but  Vitringa  thinks  the  masoretic 
accents  were  intended  to  connect  it  equally  with  both  parts  of  the  context, 
as  in  ch.  40 :  3. —  Tell  this,  cause  it  to  be  heard.  The  Hebrew  collocation 
(tell,  cause  to  be  heard,  this)  cannot  be  retained  in  English.  Utter  it  (cause 
it  to  go  forth)  even  to  the  end  of  the  earth.  Compare  ch.  42:  10.  43:  6. 
Say  ye,  Jehovah  hath  redeemed  his  servant  Jacob.  The  present  form 
adopted  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Augusti  is  not  only  unnecessary  but  inju- 
rious to  the  effect.  These  are  words  to  be  uttered  after  the  event  ;  and  the 
preterite  must  therefore  be  strictly  understood,  as  it  is  by  most  interpreters. 
The  deliverance  from  Babylon  is  here  referred  to,  only  as  one  great  exam- 
ple of  the  general  truth  that  God  saves  his  people. 

V.  21.  And  they  thirsted  not  in  the  deserts  (through  which)  he  made 
them  go.  The  translation  of  the  verbs  as  futures,  by  J.  H.  Michaelis  and 
Hitzig,  is  entirely  ungrammatical  and  inconsistent  with  the  obvious  inten- 
tion of  the  writer  to  present  these  as  the  words  of  an  annunciation  after  the 
event.  The  present  form,  adopted  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  the  later  Ger- 
mans, although  less  erroneous,  is  a  needless  and  enfeebling  evasion  of  the 
true  sense,  whi'jli  is  purely  descriptive. —  Water  from  a  well  he  made  to  flow 
for  them ;  and  he  clave  the  rock,  and  ivaters  gushed  out.  There  is  evident 
reference  here  to  the  miraculous  supply  of  water  in  the  journey  through  the 
wilderness.  (Ex.  17  :  6.  Num.  20:  11.  Ps.  78  :  15.)  It  might  even  seem  as 
if  the  writer  meant  to  state  these  facts  historically.  Such  at  least  would  be 
the  simpler  exposition  of  his  words,  which  would  then  contain  a  reference 
to  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  as  the  great  historical  example  of  deliverance. 
As  if  he  had  said,  Relate  how  God  of  old  redeemed  his  servant  Jacob  out 
of  Egypt,  and  led  him  through  the  wilderness,  and  slaked  his  thirst  with 
water  from  the  solid  rock.  Most  interpreters,  however,  are  agreed  in  apply- 
ing the  words  to  the  deliverance  from  Babylon.  Kimchi  understands  the 
language  strictly,  and  expresses  his  surprise  that  no  account  of  this  great 
miracle  was  left  on  record  by  Ezra  or  any  other  inspired  historian.  Gese- 
nius sneers  at  the  rabbin's  naivete,  but  thinks  it  matched  by  the  simplicity 
of  some  Christian  writers  who  know  not  what  to  make  of  ideal  anticipations 
which  were  never  realized.  Perhaps,  however,  the  absurdity  is  not  altogether 
on  the  side  where  he  imagines  it  to  lie.  Kimchi  was  right  in  assuming,  that 
if  the  flight  and  the  march  through  the  wilderness  were  literal  (a  supposition 
common  to  Gesenius  and  himself),  then  the  accompanying  circumstances 
must  receive  a  literal  interpretation  likewise,  unless  there  be  something 
in  the  text  itself  to  indicate  the  contrary.     Unless  we  are  prepared  to  assume 


CHAPTERXLIX.  169 

an  Irrational  confusion  of  language,  setting  all  interpretation  at  defiance,  our 
only  alternative  is  to  conclude,  on  the  one  hand,  that  Isaiah  meant  to  foretell 
a  miraculous  supply  of  water  during  the  journey  from  Babylon  to  Jerusalem, 
or  that  the  whole  description  is  a  figurative  one,  meaning  simply  that  the 
wonders  of  the  exodus  should  be  renewed.  Against  the  former  is  the  silence 
of  history,  alleged  by  Kimchi ;  against  the  latter  nothing  but  the  foregone 
conclusion  that  this  and  other  like  passages  must  relate  exclusively  to  Baby- 
lon and  the  return  from  exile. 

V.  22.  There  is  no  peace,  saith  Jehovah,  to  the  wicked.  The  meaning 
of  this  sentence,  in  itself  considered,  is  too  clear  to  be  disputed.  There  is 
more  doubt  as  to  its  connexion  with  what  jroes  before.  That  it  is  a  mere 
aphorism,  added  to  this  long  discourse,  like  a  moral  to  an  ancient  fable,  can 
only  satisfy  the  minds  of  those  who  look  upon  the  whole  book  as  a  series  of 
detached  and  incoherent  sentences.  Vastly  more  rational  is  the  opinion, 
now  the  current  one  among  interpreters,  that  this  verse  was  intended  to 
restrict  the  operation  of  the  foregoing  promises  to  true  believers,  or  the  ge- 
nuine Israel  ;  as  if  he  had  said,  All  this  will  God  accomplish  for  his  people, 
but  not  for  the  wicked  among  them.  The  grand  conclusion  to  which  all 
tends  is,  that  God  is  all  and  man  nothing  ;  that  even  the  chosen  people 
must  be  sufferers,  because  they  are  sinners  ;  that  peculiar  favour  confers  no 
immunity  to  sin  or  exemption  from  responsibility,  but  that  even  in  the  Israel 
of  God  and  the  enjoyment  of  the  most  extraordinary  privileges,  it  still 
remains  for  ever  true  that  "there  is  no  peace  to  the  wicked." 


CHAPTER    XLIX. 


This  chapter,  like  the  whole  division  which  it  introduces,  has  for  its 
great  theme  the  relation  of  the  clnu-ch  to  the  world,  or  of  Israel  to  the  gen- 
tiles. The  relation  of  the  former  to  Jehovah  is  of  course  still  kept  in  view, 
but  with  less  exclusive  prominence  than  in  the  First  Part  (ch.  xl-xlviii). 
The  doctrine  there  established  and  illustrated,  as  to  the  mutual  relation  of 
the  body  and  the  head,  is  here  assumed  as  the  basis  of  more  explicit  teach- 
ings with  respect  to  their  joint  relation  to  the  world  and  the  great  design  of 
their  vocation.  There  is  not  so  much  a  change  of  topics  as  a  change  in 
their  relative  position  and  proportions. 

The  chapter  opens  with  an  exhibition  of  the  Messiah  and  his  people, 
under  one   ideal    person,  as   the   great   appointed   Teacher,    Apostle,   and 


no  C  H  AP  T  E  R    X  L  I  X. 

Restorer,  of  the  apostate  nations,  vs.  1-9.  This  is  followed  by  a  promise 
of  divine  |)rotection  and  of  glorious  enlargement,  attended  by  a  joyous  revo- 
lution in  the  state  of  the  whole  world,  vs.  10—13.  The  doubts  and  appre- 
hensions of  the  church  herself  are  twice  recited  under  different  forms, 
vs.  14  and  24,  and  as  often  met  and  silenced,  first  by  repeated  and  still 
stronger  promises  of  God's  unchanging  love  to  his  people  and  of  their 
glorious  enlargement  and  success,  vs.  15-23  ;  then  by  an  awful  threatening 
of  destruction  to  their  enemies  and  his,  vs.  25,  26. 

V.  1.  Hearken  ye  islands  unto  me,  and  attend  ye  nations  from  afar. 
Here,  as  in  ch.  41  :  1,  he  turns  to  the  gentiles  and  addresses  tlieni  directly. 
There  is  the  same  diversity  in  this  case  as  to  the  explanation  of  a"''^N  ,  Some 
give  it  the  vague  sense  of  nations,  others  that  of  distant  nations,  while  J.  D. 
Michaelis  again  goes  to  the  opposite  extreme  by  making  it  mean  Europe  and 
Asia  Minor.  Intermediate  between  these  is  the  meaning  coasts,  approved 
by  Ewald  and  others.  But  there  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for 
departing  from  the  sense  o(  islands,  which  may  be  considered  as  a  poetical 
representative  of  foreign  and  especially  of  distant  nations,  although  not  as 
directly  expressing  that  idea. — From  afar  is  not  merely  at  a  distance 
(although  this  explanation  might,  in  case  of  necessity,  be  justified  by  usage), 
but  suggests  the  idea  of  attention  being  drawn  to  a  central  point /row  other 
points  around  it. — Jehovah  from  the  womb  hath  called  me,  from  the  boivels 
of  my  mother  he  hath  mentioned  my  name  (or  literally,  caused  it  to  be 
remembered).  This  does  not  necessarily  denote  the  literal  prediction  of  an 
individual  by  name  before  his  birth,  although,  as  Hengstenberg  suggests, 
there  may  be  an  intentional  allusion  to  that  circumstance,  involved  in  the 
wider  meaning  of  the  words,  viz.  that  of  personal  election  and  designation  to 
office.  Vitringa's  explanation  of 'r??^  as  meaning  before  birth,  is  not  only 
unauthorized,  but  as  gratuitous  as  Noyes's  euphemistic  paraphrase,  in  my 
very  childhood.  The  expression  from  the  tvotnb  may  be  either  inclusive  of 
the  period  before  birth,  or  restricted  to  the  actual  vocation  of  the  s|ieaker  to 
his  providential  work. — The  speaker  in  this  and  the  following  verses  is  not 
Isaiah,  either  as  an  individual,  or  as  a  representative  of  the  prophets  gene- 
rally, on  either  of  which  suppositions  the  terms  used  are  inappropriate 
and  extravagant.  Neither  the  prophets  as  a  class,  nor  Isaiah  as  a  single 
prophet,  had  been  intrusted  with  a  message  to  the  gentiles.  In  favour  of 
supposing  that  the  speaker  is  Israel,  the  chosen  people,  there  are  various 
considerations,  but  especially  the  aid  which  this  hypothesis  affords  in  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  third  verse.  At  the  same  time  there  are  clear  indications 
that  the  words  are  the  words  of  the  Messiah.  These  two  most  plausible 
interpretations  may  be  reconciled  and  blended,  by  assuming  that  in  this  case 
as  in  ch.  42  :  1,  the  ideal  speaker  is  the  Messiah  considered  as  the  head  of 


CH  AP  T  E  R    XLIX.  171 

his  people  and  as  forming  with  them  one  complex  person,  according  to  the 
canon  of  Tichonius  already  quoted,  de  Christo  et  Corpora  ejus  Ecdesia  tan- 
quam  de  una  persona  in  Scriptura  saeyius  mentionem  fieri,  cui  guaedam  iri- 
buuntur  quae  tantum  in  Caput,  qvaedam  quae  tantum  in  Corpus  competunt, 
quaedam  vera  in  utrumque.  The  objections  to  this  assumption  here  are  for 
the  most  part  negative  and  superficial.  That  of  Hengstenberg,  that  if  this 
were  the  true  interpretation  here,  it  would  admit  of  being  carried  out  else- 
where, is  really  a  strong  proof  of  its  truth  ;  as  we  have  seen  conclusive 
reasons,  independently  of  this  case,  to  explain  the  parallel  passage  in  ch. 
42  :  1  on  precisely  the  same  principle.  The  whole  question  as  to  the  sub- 
jects and  connexions  of  these  Later  Prophecies  has  made  a  very  sensible 
advance  towards  satisfactory  solution  since  the  date  of  the  Christology,  as 
may  be  learned  by  comparing  the  general  analysis  and  special  expositions 
of  the  latter  with  the  corresponding  passages  of  Havernick  and  Drechsler. 
If,  as  we  have  seen  cause  to  believe,  the  grand  theme  of  this  whole  book  is 
the  Church,  in  its  relation  to  its  Head  and  to  the  World,  the  anterior  pre- 
sumption is  no  longer  against  but  decidedly  in  favour  of  the  reference  of  this 
verse  to  the  Head  and  the  Body  as  one  person,  a  reference  confirmed,  as  we 
shall  see,  by  clear  New  Testament  authority. 

V.  2.  And  he  hath  placed  (i.  e.  rendered  or  made)  my  mouth  like  a 
sharp  sword.  By  mouth  we  are  of  course  to  understand  speech,  discourse. 
The  comparison  is  repeated  and  explained  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
(4  :  12) :  "The  word  of  God  is  quick  and  powerful,  and  sharper  than  any 
two-ed^ed  sword,  piercing  even  to  the  dividing  asunder  of  soul  and  spirit,  and 
of  the  joints  and  marrow,  and  is  a  discerner  of  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the 
heart."  In  both  cases  these  qualities  are  predicated  not  of  literal  speech 
merely,  but  of  the  instruction  of  which  it  is  the  natural  and  common  instru- 
ment. As  tropical  parallels,  Lowth  refers  to  Pindar's  frequent  description 
of  his  verses  as  darts,  but  especially  to  the  famous  panegyric  of  Eupolis  on 
Pericles,  that  he  alone  of  the  orators  left  a  sting  in  those  who  heard  him 
(twvo^  Tco^■  Q)j7(')Q0M>  TO  'AH'TQOv  fyxuTtXtins  roi>;  «x()oco/<Ho^'). — In  the  shadow 
of  his  hand  he  hid  me.  It  has  been  made  a  question  whether  in  the  shadow 
of  his  hand  means  in  his  hand  or  under  it  ;  and  if  the  latter,  whether  there 
is  reference  to  the  usual  position  of  the  sword-belt,  or  to  the  concealment  of 
the  drawn  sword  or  dagger  under  the  arm  or  in  the  sleeve.  Most  inter- 
preters, however,  prefer  the  obvious  sense,  in  the  protection  of  his  hand,  or 
rather  in  its  darkness,  since  the  reference  is  not  so  much  to  safety  as  to  con- 
cealment. Thus  understood,  the  figure  is  appropriate  not  only  to  the  per- 
sonal Messiah,  but  to  the  ancient  church,  as  his  precursor  and  represen- 
tative, in  which  high  character  it  was  not  known  for  ages  to  the  nations. — 
And  he  placed  me  for  (that  is,  rendered  me,  or,  used  me  as)  a  polished 


172  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I  X. 

arroiv.  This  is  the  parallel  expression  to  the  first  member  of  the  other 
clause.  What  is  there  called  a  sword  is  here  an  arrow.  The  essential  idea 
is  of  course  the  same,  viz.  that  of  penetrating  power,  but  perhaps  with  an 
additional  allusion  to  the  directness  of  its  aim  and  the  swiftness  of  its  flight. 
The  common  version  shaft  is  not  entirely  accurate,  the  Hebrew  word  denot- 
ing strictly  the  metallic  head  of  the  arrow.  The  Septuagint  gives  "^i3  the 
sense  of  chosen  or  elect,  which  is  retained  by  Vitringa  ;  but  most  inter- 
preters prefer  the  sense  of  polished,  which  is  near  akin  to  that  of  sharpened, 
sharp. — hi  his  quiver  he  has  hid  me.  This  is  the  corresponding  image  to 
the  hiding  in  the  shadow  of  God's  hand.  It  is  still  more  obvious  in  this 
case  that  the  main  idea  meant  to  be  conveyed  is  not  protection  but  conceal- 
ment. The  archer  keeps  the  arrow  in  his  quiver  not  merely  that  it  may  be 
safe,  but  that  it  may  be  ready  for  use  and  unobserved  until  it  is  used. 

V.  3.  And  he  (Jehovah)  said  to  me,  Thou  art  my  servant,  i.  e.  my 
instrument  or  agent  constituted  such  for  a  specific  and  important  purpose. 
In  this  same  character  both  Israel  and  the  Messiah  have  before  been  intro- 
duced. There  is  therefore  the  less  reason  for  giving  any  other  than  the 
strict  sense  to  the  words  which  follow,  Israel  in  whom  I  ivill  he  glorified  or 
glorify  myself.  The  version  /  will  glory  seems  inadequate  and  not  suffi- 
ciently sustained  by  usage.  Gesenius,  unable  to  reconcile  this  form  of 
address  with  the  hypothesis  that  the  speaker  is  Isaiah  or  the  Prophets  as  a 
class,  pro])oses  in  his  commentary  what  had  been  before  proposed  by  J.  D. 
Michaelis,  to  expunge  the  word  ^n';"^'?  as  spurious, — a  desperate  device  which 
he  abandons  in  the  second  edition  of  his  version,  and  adopts  the  opinion  of 
Umbreit,  that  the  Israel  of  this  passage  is  the  chosen  people  as  a  whole  or 
with  respect  to  its  better  portion.  The  other  devices,  which  have  been 
adopted  for  the  purpose  of  evading  this  difficulty,  although  not  so  violent, 
are  equally  unfounded.  E.  g.  '  It  is  Israel  in  whom  I  will  be  glorified  by 
thee.'  '  Thou  art  an  Israelite  indeed,  or  a  genuine  descendant  of  Israel.' 
Another  gratuitous  hypothesis  is  that  of  a  sudden  apostrophe  to  Israel  after 
addressing  the  Messiah  or  the  Prophet.  The  only  supposition  which  adheres 
to  the  natural  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  sentence,  and  yet  agrees  with  the 
context,  is  the  first  above  mentioned,  viz.  that  of  a  complex  subject  includ- 
ing the  Messiah  and  his  people,  or  the  body  with  its  head. 

V.  4.  And,  I  said,  in  opposition  or  reply  to  what  Jehovah  said.  The 
pronoun  in  Hebrew,  being  not  essential  to  the  sense,  is  emphatic. — In  vain 
(or  for  a  vain  thing,  i.  e.  an  unattainable  object)  have  I  toiled.  The  Hebrew 
word  suggests  the  idea  of  exhaustion  and  weariness. — For  emptiness  and 
vanity  my  strength  have  I  consumed.  But  my  right  is  with  Jehovah  and 
my  worTc  with  my  God.     n^ssj  is  no  doubt  here  used  in  the  same  sense  as  in 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    XL  IX.  173 

ch.  40  :  10,  viz.  that  of  recompense,  work  being  put  for  its  result  or  its 
equivalent.  If  so,  it  is  altogether  probable  that  '^'JQi^'?  here  means  that  to 
which  I  have  a  right  or  am  entitled,  that  is  to  say  in  this  connexion,  my 
reward  or  recompense.  This  explanation  of  the  term  is  certainly  more 
natural  than  that  which  makes  it  mean  my  cause,  my  suit,  as  this  needlessly 
introduces  a  new  figure,  viz.  that  of  litigation  over  and  above  that  of  labour 
or  service  for  hire.  This  clause  is  universally  explained  as  an  expression  of 
strong  confidence  that  God  would  make  good  what  was  wanting,  by  bestow- 
ing the  reward  which  had  not  yet  been  realized.  JVifh  therefore  means  in 
his  possession,  and  at  his  disposal.  The  next  verse  shows  that  the  failure 
here  complained  of  is  a  failure  to  accomplish  the  great  work  before  described, 
viz.  that  of  converting  the  world. 

V.  5.  And  now,  saith  Jehovah,  my  maker  (or  who  formed  me)  from,  the 
womb,  for  a  servant  to  himself,  i.  e.  to  be  his  servant  in  the  sense  before 
explained.  The  noiv  may  be  here  taken  either  in  its  temporal  or  logical 
sense. —  To  convert  (or  bring  back)  Jacob  to  him.  This  cannot  mean  to 
restore  from  exile  ;  for  how  could  this  work  be  ascribed  directly  either  to 
the  Prophet  or  the  Prophets,  or  to  the  Messiah,  or  to  Israel  himself?  It 
might  indeed  apply  to  Cyrus,  but  the  whole  context  is  at  war  with  such  an 
explanation.  All  that  is  left,  then,  is  to  give  the  verb  the  sense  of  bringing 
back  to  a  state  of  allegiance  from  one  of  alienation  and  revolt.  But  how 
could  Jacob  or  Israel  be  said  to  bring  himself  back  ?  This  is  the  grand 
objection  to  the  assumption  that  the  servant  of  Jehovah  was  Israel  himself. 
In  order  to  evade  it,  Rosenmiiller  and  Hitzig  deny  that  ^^i^^  is  dependent 
on  the  words  immediately  preceding,  and  refer  it  to  Jehovah  himself,  that 
he  might  bring  back  Jacob  to  himself  But  this  construction,  not  an  obvious 
or  natural  one  in  itself,  if  here  assumed,  must  be  repeated  again  and  again 
in  the  following  verses,  where  it  is  still  more  strained  and  inappropriate. 
Nor  is  it  necessary  even  hei'e,  to  justify  the  reference  of  the  passage  to 
Israel,  which  may  be  effected  by  assuming  a  coincident  reference  to  the 
Messiah,  as  the  head  of  the  body,  and  as  such  conspicuously  active  in  restor- 
ing Israel  itself  to  God. — This  is  one  of  the  cases  where  the  idea  of  the 
head  predominates  above  that  of  the  body,  because  they  are  related  to  each 
other  as  the  subject  and  object  of  one  and  the  same  action.  The  vocation 
of  Israel  was  to  reclaim  the  nations  ;  that  of  the  Messiah  was  first  to  reclaim 
Israel  himself  and  then  the  nations. — In  the  next  clause  there  is  an  ancient 
variation  of  the  text,  preserved  in  the  Kethib  and  Keri  of  the  Masora.  The 
marginal  emendation  is  ib  to  him,  which  many  modern  interpreters  prefer, 
and  make  it  for  the  most  part  a  dependent  clause,  to  restore  Jacob  to  him 
and  that  Israel  may  be  gathered  to  him.  In  the  sentence  construed  thus  it 
might  seem  strange  that   different  prepositions  should  be  used  in  the  two 


174  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I  X. 

parallel  members,  and  that  ib  should  stand  before  the  verb  instead  of 
closing  the  phrase  as  i^^x  does.  But  these  might  be  considered  trivial 
points,  were  it  not  that  the  marginal  reading  is  so  easily  accounted  for,  as 
an  attempt  to  remove  the  difficulties  of  the  older  text,  in  which  the  si^  has 
its  natural  and  necessary  place  before  the  verb.  Luther,  adhering  to  the 
textual  reading,  gives  the  verb  an  unfavourable  sense,  thai  Israel  may  not  be 
snatched  away  or  carried  off.  But  most  of  those  who  retain  the  old  reading 
give  the  verb  the  favourable  sense  of  gathering  that  which  is  dispersed. 
Some  then  read  the  clause  as  an  interrogation,  shall  not  Israel  be  gathered  ? 
Others  as  a  concession,  although  Israel  be  not  gathered.  Others  as  a 
simple  affirmation  in  the  present  tense,  and  (yet)  Israel  is  not  gathered. 
All  that  is  needed  to  give  this  last  the  preference  is  the  substitution  of  the 
future  for  the  present,  after  which  the  whole  verse  may  be  paraphrased  as 
follows  :  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  who  formed  me  from  the  womb  as  a  servant 
for  himself,  to  restore  Jacob  to  him,  and  (yet)  Israel  will  not  be  gathered — 
and  (yet)  I  shall  be  honoured  in  the  eyes  of  Jehovah,  and  my  God  has 
(already)  been  my  strength.  The  first  yet  introduced  to  show  the  true  con- 
nexion is  equivalent  to  saying,  though  I  was  called  and  raised  up  for  this 
purpose  ;  the  other  is  equivalent  to  saying,  although  Israel  will  not  be 
gathered.  This  last  phrase  may  be  taken  as  a  simple  prediction  that  they 
should  not  be  gathered,  or  a  declaration  that  they  would  not  (consent  to)  be 
gathered.  This  last,  if  not  expressed,  is  implied. — The  translation  of  "^Tr  as 
meaning  my  praise  is  entirely  gratuitous  and  hurtful  to  the  sense,  which  is, 
that  God  had  sustained  him  notwithstanding  the  apparent  failure  of  his  mis- 
sion. The  general  meaning  of  the  verse  is  that  Messiah  and  his  people 
should  be  honoured  in  the  sight  of  God,  although  the  proximate  design  of 
their  mission,  the  salvation  of  the  literal  Israel,  might  seem  to  fail. 

V.  6.  And  he  said.  This  does  not  introduce  a  new  discourse  or 
declaration,  but  resumes  the  construction  which  had  been  interrupted  by  the 
parenthetic  clauses  of  the  foregoing  verse.  It  is  in  facta  repetition  of  the 
'^j'"'?  "^^  at  the  beginning  of  that  verse.  And  now  saith  Jehovah  (loho 
formed  me  from  the  womb  to  be  a  servant  to  himself  to  restore  Jacob  to 
him,  and  yet  Israel  will  not  be  gathered,  and  yet  I  shall  be  honoured  in  the 
eyes  of  Jehovah,  and  my  God  has  been  my  stre7igth^ — he  said  or  says  as 
follows.  It  is  a  light  thing  that  thou  shouldest  be  my  servant.  The 
original  form  of  expression  is  so  purely  idiomatic,  that  it  cannot  be  retained 
in  English.  According  to  the  usual  analogy,  the  Hebrew  words  would  seem 
to  mean  it  is  lighter  than  thy  being  my  servant ;  but  this  can  be  resolved 
into  it  is  too  light  for  thee  to  be  my  servant,  with  at  least  as  much  ease  as  a 
hundred  other  formulas,  the  sense  of  which  is  obvious,  however  difficult  it 
may  be  to  account  for  the  expression.     Hitzig's  assertion,  therefore,  that  it 


CHAPTERXLIX.  175 

is  at  variance  with  the  laws  of  thought  and  language,  though  adopted  by 
Gesenius  in  his  Thesaurus,  is  not  only  arbitrary  but  absurd,  as  it  assumes 
the  possibility  of  ascertaining  and  determining  these  laws  independently  of 
actual  usage.     The   most   that   can   be  said  with  truth  is  that  the  form  of 
expression  is  anomalous  and  rare,  though  not  unparalleled,  as  may  be  seen 
by  a  comparison  of  this  verse  with   Ezek.  8:  17.     The  sense,  if  it  were 
doubtful  in  itself,  would  be  clear  from  the  context,  which  requires  this  to  be 
taken  as  a  declaration  that  it  was  not  enough  for  the  Messiah  (and  the 
people  as  his  representative)  to  labour  for  the  natural  descendants  of  Abra- 
ham, hut  he  and  they  must  have  a  wider  field. —  Thy  being  to  mc  a  ser- 
vant to  raise  up  the  tribes  of  Jacob  and  the  preserved  of  Israel  to  restore. 
This   form  of  expression   shows   very  clearly  that  in   this  and  the  parallel 
passages  servant  is  not  used   indefinitely  but   in  the  specific   sense  of  an 
appointed  instalment  or  agent  to  perform  a  certain  work.     That  \vork  is 
here  the  raising  up  of  Jacob,  a  phrase  which  derives  light  from  the  parallel 
expression,  to  restore  the  preserved  of  Israel,  i.  e.  to  raise  them  from  a  state 
of  degradation,  and  to  restore  them  from  a  state  of  estrangement.     A  specific 
reference  to  restoration  from  the  Babylonish  exile  would  be  gratuitous  ;  much 
more  the    restriction  of  the  words  to   that  event,  which  is  merely  included 
as   a  signal  instance  of  deliverance  and   restoration  in   the  general.     The 
textual   reading   "^y^}  appears  to  be  a  verbal  adjective  occurring  no  where 
else,  and  therefore  exchanged  by  the  masoretic  critics  for  the  passive  parti- 
ciple "'ll^^J  .     J.  D.  Michaelis,  more   ingeniously  than   wisely,  makes  "i"^:?; 
synonymous  with  ^:i}  (ch.  11  :  1)  a  shoot  or  sprout,  and   gives  to  :;2t;  the 
corresponding  sense  of  a  twig  or  branch — the  shoots  of  Jacob  and  the  iwip"s 
of  Israel.      All  other  writers  seem  to  take  the  latter  in  its  usual  sense  of  tribe, 
and  the  other  in  that  of  preserved — meaning  the  elect  or  '  such  as  should  be 
saved.' — And  1  have  give?!  thee  for  a  light  of  the  gentiles  (as  in  ch.  42  :  6), 
to  be  my  salvation  even   to  the  end  of  the  earth.     This,  according  to  the 
English  idiom,  would  seem  to  mean  that  thou  viayest  be  my  salvation  etc.; 
but   Hebrew  usage  equally  admits  of  the  interpretation,  that  my  salvation 
may  be  (i.  e.  extend)  to  the  end  of  the  earth,  which  is  in  fact  preferred  by 
most  interpreters.     The  meaning  of  this  verse  is  not,  as  some  suppose,  that 
the  heathen  should  be  given  to  him  in  exchange  and  compensation  for  the 
unbelieving  Jews,  but  that  his  mission  to  the  latter  was,  from  the  beginnin^j 
but  a  small  part  of  his  high  vocation.     The  application  of  this  verse  by  Paul 
and  Barnabas,  in  their  address  to  the  Jews  of  Antioch  in  Pisidia  (Acts 
13  :  47)  is  very  important,  as  a  confirmation  of  the  hypothesis  assumed 
above,  that  the  person  here  described  is  not  the  IMessiah  exclusively,  but  that 
his  people  are  included  in  the  subject  of  the  description. — "  It  was  necessary 
that  the  word  of  God  should  first  have  been  spoken  unto  you  ;  but  seeing  ye 
put  it  from  you,  and  judge  yourselves  unworthy  of  everlasting  life,  lo,  we  turn' 


176  CH  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  IX. 

to  the  gentiles.  For  so  hath  the  Lord  commanded  us  (saying),  I  have  set 
thee  to  be  a  light  of  the  gentiles,  that  thou  shouldesi  be  for  salvation  unto  the 
ends  of  the  earth."  Although  this,  as  Hengstenberg  observes,  is  not  irrecon- 
cilable with  the  exclusive  Messianic  explanation  of  the  verse  before  us,  its 
agreement  with  the  wider  explanation  is  too  striking  to  be  deemed  fortuitous. 

V.  7.  Thus  snith  Jehovah,  the  Redeemer  of  Israel,  his  Holy  One,  to 
the  heartily  despised,  to  the  nation  exciting  abhorrence.  The  two  epithets 
in  this  clause  are  exceedingly  obscure  and  difficult.  S^'ts  has  been  variously 
explained  as  an  infinitive,  a  passive  participle,  and  an  adjective  in  the  con- 
struct state,  which  last  is  adopted  by  Gesenius  and  most  later  writers — ttJE3 
is  commonly  explained  as  meaning  me/i,  chiefly  because  the  parallel  ex- 
pression in  Ps.  22  :  7  is  c^  ""iiTa.  Another  explanation  takes  it  in  its  proper 
sense  of  soul,  and  understands  it  to  qualify  hts,  as  meaning  despised  from 
the  soul,  ex  animo.  (Compare  (iJsja  la^x  (Ps.  17  :  9.)  The  meaning 
men  belongs  to  the  word  only  in  certain  cases,  chiefly  those  in  which 
we  use  the  same  expression,  not  a  soul,  forty^  souls,  poor  soul,  etc.  No 
one,  from  this  English  usage,  would  infer  (hat  hated  by  souls  meant  hated 
by  persons. — The  other  epithet  is  still  more  difficult,  as  it  is  necessary 
to  determine  whether  ^rn^a  has  its  usual  sense,  and  whether  "'i-"  is  its  subject 
or  its  object.  Whom  the  nation  ahhorreth,  who  abhorrcth  the  nation,  who 
excites  the  abhorrence  of  the  nation,  the  nation  which  excites  abhorrence, 
— all  these  are  possible  translations  of  the  Hebrew  words,  among  which 
interpreters  choose  according  to  their  different  views  respecting  the  whole 
passage.  In  any  case  it  is  descriptive  of  deep  abasement  and  general  con- 
tempt, to  be  exchanged  hereafter  for  an  opposite  condition. —  To  a  servant  of 
rulers,  one  who  has  hitherto  been  subject  to  them  but  is  now  to  receive  their 
homage — .Kings  shall  see  (not  himovthem,  butz^,  viz.  that  which  is  to  happen) 
and  rise  up  (as  a  tokenof  respect),  princes  {shall  see)  and  bow  themselves.  It  is 
an  ingenious  thought  of  Hitzig,  though  perhaps  too  refined,  that  kings,  being 
usually  sealed  in  the  presence  of  others,  are  described  as  rising  from  their 
thrones  ;  while  princes  and  nobles,  who  usually  stand  in  the  presence  of  their 
sovereigns,  are  described  as  falling  prostrate. —  For  the  sake  of  Jehovah  who 
is  faithful  (to  his  promises),  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  and  he  hath  chosen 
thee,  or  in  our  idiom  who  hath  chosen  thee.  This  last  clause  not  only  ascribes 
the  promised  change  to  the  power  of  God,  but  represents  it  as  intended  solely 
to  promote  his  glory. 

V.  8.  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  In  a  time  of  favour  have  I  heard  (or  answer- 
ed^ thee,  and  in  a  day  of  salvation  have  I  helped  thee.  The  common 
version,  an  acceptable  time,  does  not  convey  the  sense  of  the  original,  which 
signifies  a  suitable   or  appointed  time  for  showing  grace  or  favour.     The 


C  H  A  P  TE  R    X  L  IX.  I77 

object  of  address  is  still  the  Messiah  and  his  people,  whose  great  mission  is 
again  described.  And  I  will  liccp  thee,  and  n-ill  give  tlicc  for  a  covenant 
of  the  people,  i.  e.  of  men  in  general  (see  above,  ch.  42  :  7),  to  raise  vp  the 
earth  or  world  from  its  present  state  of  ruin,  and  to  cause  to  inherit  the 
desolate  heritages,  the  moral  wastes  of  hcathenisni.  There  is  allusion  to  the 
division  of  the  land  by  Joshua.  Here  again  we  have  clear  Apostolical 
authority  for  applying  this  description  to  the  Chui'ch,  or  people  of  God,  as 
the  Body  of  which  Christ  is  the  Head.  Paul  says  to  the  Corinthians,  "  We- 
then  as  workers  together  (with  him)  beseech  you  also  that  ye  receive  not 
the  word  of  God  in  vain.  For  he  saith,  I  have  heard  thee  in  a  lime  accepted, 
and  in  the  day  of  salvation  have  I  succoured  thee."  What  follows  is  no  part 
of  the  quotation  but  Paul's  comment  on  it.  "Behold,  now  is  the  accepted 
time  ;  behold,  now  is  the  day  of  salvation."  (2  Cor.  6  :  2.)  This,  taken  in 
connexion  with  the  citation  of  v.  6  in  Acts  13  :  47,  precludes  the  supposition 
of  an  accidental  or  unmeaning  application  of  this  passage  to  the  people  or. 
ministers  of  Christ  as  well  as  to  himself. 

V.  9.    To   say  to  those   bound,  Come  forth  ;   to    (those)   who   (are)  in^ 
darkness,  Be  revealed  (or  shoiv  yourselves),     -■'tab  might  here  be  taken  in 
its   usual  sense   after   verbs   of  speaking,   viz.  that  of  scri/?77o- ;   but  it  seems 
more  natural  to  make  it  a  correlative  of  the  infinitives  cijrrib  and  ^Tijnb  ^ 
to  raise  vp — to  cause  to  inherit — to  say.     Gesenius  paraphrases  rather  than 
translates  l-JH)  cowe    to    the  light;   which    is  carefully  copied   by  his  later 
imitators  as  a  faithful  version. —  On  the  ivays  (ox-  roads)  they  shall  feed,  and 
in  all  bare  hills  (shall  be)  their  pasture.     There  is  here  a  change  of  figure., 
the  delivered  being  represented  not  as  prisoners  or  freedmen  but  as  flocks. 
Some  read  by  the  way  or  on  their  ivay    homeward  ;  but  it  is  commonly 
agreed   that  the  Prophet  simply  represents  the  flock  as  finding  pasture  even 
without  going  aside  to  seek  it,  and  even  in  the  most  unlikely  situations.     The 
restriction   of  these   figures  to  deliverance  from  Babylon,  can  seem  natural 
only  to   those  who   have  assumed  the  same  hypothesis  throughout  the  fore- 
going chapters. 

V.  10.  They  shall  not  hunger  and  they  shall  not  thirst,  and  there  shall 
not  smite  them  mirage  and  sun  ;  for  he  that  hath  mercy  on  them  shall  guide 
them,  and  by  springs  ofivater  shall  he  lead  them.  The  image  of  a  flock  is 
still  continued.  (Compare  ch.  40:  10,  11.  41  :  18.  43:  19.)  nn':3  is  the 
same  word  that  is  now  universally  explained  in  ch.  35  :  7  to  mean  the 
mirage,  or  delusive  appearance  of  water  in  the  desert.  (See  the  Earlier 
Prophecies,  p.  582.)  Jarchi  explains  it  here  by  cin  /iea<,  which  Rosenmiiller 
supposes  to  be  here  substituted  for  the  proper  meaning.  Gesenius,  on  the 
other  hand,  makes  heat  the  primary,  and  mirage  the  secondary  sense.    The 

12 


178  CH  AP  T  E  R    X  LIX. 

reason  for  excluding  the  latter  here  is  that  it  does  not  seem  to  suit  the  verb 
smite ;  but  as  this  verb  is  used  with  considerable  latitude,  and  as  a  zeugma 
may  be  easily  assumed,  Hitzij;,  Ewald,  and  Knobel  give  the  noun  the  same 
sense  in  both  places.  Most  of  the  modern  writers  understand  the  last  clause 
to  mean,  to  s^jrings  of  water  he  shall  had  them  ;  but  alo7ig  or  by  may  be 
considered  preferable,  as  suggesting  more  directly  the  idea  of  progressive 
motion.  As  he  leads  them  onwards,  he  conducts  them  along  streams  of 
water.  This  may  however  be  supposed  to  give  too  great  a  latitude  of  meaning 
to  the  word  translated  springs. — For  the  true  sense  of  the  verb  ^f]?"',  see 
above,  on  cb.  40  :  II. 

V.  1 1.  And  I  will  place  all  my  mountains  for  the  ivay,  and  my  roads 
shall  be  high.  Tlie  image  of  a  flock  is  now  exchanged  for  that  of  an  army 
on  the  march.  Rosenmiiller  omits  my,  and  explains  ■'":^  as  an  old  plural 
form  ;  to  which  Gesenius  objects,  not  only  as  gratuitous,  but  also  as  at  variance 
with  the  parallelism  which  requires  a  suffix.  My  mountains  is  by  some 
understood  to  mean  the  mountains  of  Israel ;  but  why  these  should  be  men- 
tioned is  not  easily  explained.  Others  with  more  probability  explain  it  as 
an  indirect  assertion  of  God's  sovereignty  and  absolute  control,  and  more 
especially  his  power  to  remove  the  greatest  obstacles  from  the  way  of  his 
people.  The  original  expression  is  not  merely /or  a  way  but /or  the  way, 
i.  e.  the  way  in  which  my  people  are  to  go.  -^^^la  is  an  artificial  road  or 
causeway  made  by  throwing  up  the  earth,  which  seems  to  be  intended  by 
the  verb  at  the  close.  (Compare  the  use  of  Vbo  ch.  57  :  14.  62:  19.)  The 
discrepance  of  gender  in  the  verb  and  noun  is  an  anomaly,  but  one  which 
does  not  in  the  least  obscure  the  sense  or  even  render  the  construction 
doubtful.     Compare  with  this  verse  ch.  35  :  8.  40  :  4. 

V.  12.  Behold,  these  from  afar  shall  come,  and  behold  these  from  the 
north  and  from  the  sea,  and  these  from  the  land  of  Siriim.  There  is  not 
the  least  doubt  as  to  the  literal  translation  of  this  verse  ;  and  yet  it  has  been 
a  famous  subject  of  discordant  expositions,  all  of  which  turn  upon  the  question 
what  is  meant  by  the  land  of  Sinim.  In  addition  to  the  authors  usually 
cited,  respect  will  here  be  had  to  an  interesting  monograph,  by  an  American 
Missionary  in  China,  originally  published  in  the  Chinese  Repository,  and 
republished  in  this  country  under  the  title  of"  The  Land  of  Sinim,  or  an 
exposition  of  Isaiah  49:  12,  together  with  a  brief  account  of  the  Jews  and 
Christians  in  China."  (Philadelphia,  1845.)  It  is  well  said  by  this  writer, 
that  the  verse  before  us  is  the  central  point  of  the  prophetical  discourse,  of 
which  it  forms  a  part ;  inasmuch  as  it  embodies  the  great  promise,  which  m 
various  forms  is  exhibited  before  and  afterwards.  This  relation  of  the  text 
to  the  context  is  important,  because  it  creates  a  presumption  in  favour  of  the 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  IX.  I79 

widest  meaning  which  can  he  put  upon  tlie  terms  of  the  ])rediction,  and 
against  a  restricted  local  application.  A  preliminary  question,  not  devoid  of 
exegetical  importance,  is  the  question  with  respect  to  the  mutual  relation  of 
the  clauses,  as  divided  in  the  masoretic  text.  The  doubtful  point  is  whether 
the  first  clause  is  a  single  item  in  an  enumeration  of  particulars,  or  a  generic 
statement,  comprehending  the  specific  statements  of  the  other  clause. 
Almost  all  interpreters  assume  the  former  ground  and  undeistand  the  verse 
as  naming  or  distinguishing  the  four  points  of  the  compass.  But  the  other 
supposition  is  ingeniously  maintained  by  the  JMissionary  in  China,  who 
makes  the  first  clause  a  general  prediction  that  converts  shall  come  from  the 
remotest  nations,  and  the  other  an  explanation  of  this  vague  expression,  as 
including  the  north,  the  west,  and  the  land  of  Sinim.  Upon  this  construction 
of  the  sentence,  which  is  certainly  plausible  and  striking,  it  may  be  observed, 
in  the  first  place,  that  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  end  at  which  the  author 
seems  to  aim  in  urging  it.  This  end  appears  to  be  the  securing  of  some 
proof  that  the  specifications  of  the  second  clause  relate  to  distant  countiies. 
But  this  conclusion  is  almost  as  obvious,  if  not  entirely  so,  upon  the  other 
supposition;  for  if  one  of  the  four  quarters  is  denoted  by  the  phrase  from 
afar,  the  idea  necessarily  suggested  is  that  all  the  other  points  enumerated 
are  remote  likewise.  The  same  thing  would  moreover  be  sufficiently  appar- 
ent from  the  whole  drift  of  the  context  as  relating  not  to  proximate  or  local 
changes  but  to  vast  and  universal  ones.  Nothing  is  gained  therefore  even 
for  the  author's  own  opinion,  by  the  admission  of  this  new  construction. 
Another  observation  is  that  the  authority  on  which  he  seems  to  rest  its  claims 
is  inconclusive,  namely,  that  of  the  masoretic  interpunction,  as  denoted  by 
the  accents.  He  states  the  testimony  thus  afforded  much  too  strongly,  when 
he  speaks  of  "  a  full  stop"  after  the  clause  from-  afar  they  shall  come,  and 
points  the  verse  accordingly.  The  Athnach,  as  a  general  rule,  indicates  the 
pause  not  at  the  end  but  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence  or  complete  proposition. 
It  is  therefore  prima  facie  proof  that  the  sense  is  incomplete;  and  althouidi 
there  may  be  numerous  excej)tions,  it  cannot  possibly  demonstrate  that  the  first 
clause  does  not  form  a  ))art  of  the  same  series  of  particulars  w  liich  is  concluded 
in  the  second.  That  the  first  clause  frequently  contains  w  hat  may  be  loficalU'- 
called  an  essential  portion  of  the  second,  any  reader  may  convince  himself  by 
the  most  cursory  inspection  of  the  book  before  us  ;  and  for  two  decisive 
examples  in  this  very  chapter,  he  has  only  to  examine  the  fifih  and  seventh 
verses,  where  the  substitution  of  a  "  full  stop"  for  the  Athnach  would 
destroy  the  sense.  But  even  if  the  testimony  of  the  accents  were  still  more 
explicit  and  decisive  than  it  is,  their  comparatively  recent  date  and  their 
mixed  relation  to  rhythmical  or  musical  as  well  as  to  grammatical  and  lo<rical 
distinctions  make  it  always  proper  to  subject  their  decisions  to  the  requisitions 
of  the  text  and  context  in  themselves  considered.     Notwithstandin"-  the  threat 


180  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  IX. 

value  of  i\i<^  inasorelic  accents  as  an  aid  to  interpretation,  the  appeal  njust 
after  all  be  to  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  words,  or  in  default  of  this  to  analogy 
and  usage.  The  accents  leave  us  therefore  perfectly  at  liberty  to  look  upon  the 
mutual  relation  of  the  clauses  as  an  o|)en  question,  by  inquiring  whether  there 
is  any  valid  reason  for  departing  from  the  ancient  and  customary  supposition 
that  the  four  points  of  the  compass,  or  at  least  four  quarters  or  directions, 
are  distinctly  mentioned.  Tliis  leads  me,  in  the  third  place,  to  observe  that 
the  objection  whicii  the  Missionary  makes  to  this  hypothesis,  apart  from  the 
question  of  accentuation,  is  an  insufficient  one.  He  objects  to  Vitringa's 
explanation  of  the  phrase  from  afar  as  meaning  from  the  cast  (and  the 
same  objection  would  Ijy  parity  of  reasoning  apply  to  the  explanation  of  it 
as  denoting yro?H  the  south),  that  afar  does  not  mean  the  east,  and  is  not 
elsewhere  used  to  denote  it.  But  what  Vitringa  means  to  say  is  not  that 
afar  means  the  cast,  but  simply  that  it  here  supplies  its  place.  If  any  one. 
in  numbering  the  points  of  the  compass,  should,  instead  of  a  complete  enu- 
meration, say  the  north,  south,  east,  and  so  on,  his  obvious  meaning  could 
not  well  be  rendered  doubtful  by  denying  thai  and  so  on  ever  means  the 
west.  It  is  not  the  words  themselves,  but  the  place  which  they  occupy, 
and  their  relation  to  the  rest  of  the  sentence,  that  suggests  rather  than 
expresses  the  idea.  So  here,  the  north,  the  west,  the  land  of  Sinim,  and 
afar,  may  denote  the  four  points  of  the  compass,  although  not  so  explicitly 
as  in  the  case  supposed,  because  in  that  before  us  we  have  not  merely  one 
doubtful  point,  but  two,  if  not  three  ;  and  also  because  the  one  most  dubious 
(^from  afar)  is  not  at  the  end  like  and  so  on,  but  at  the  beginning.  Still  it 
seems  most  natural,  when  four  distinct  local  designations  are  given,  one  of 
which  is  certainly,  another  almost  certainly,  and  a  third  most  probably, 
indicative  of  particular  quarters  or  directions,  to  conclude  that  the  fourth  is 
so  used  likewise,  however  vague  it  may  be  in  itself,  and  however  situated  in 
the  sentence.  The  presumption  thus  created  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that 
the  hypothesis  of  only  three  divisions  admits  that  the  whole  earth  was  meant 
to  be  included  ;  and  it  thus  becomes  a  question,  which  is  most  agreeable  to 
general  usage,  and  to  that  of  Scripture  in  |)articular,  a  threefold  or  a  fourfold 
distribution  of  the  earth  in  such  connexions  ?  \i  the  latter,  then  analogy  is 
strongly  in  favour  of  the  common  supposition  that  the  first  clause  is  not 
coextensive  with  the  other,  but  contains  the  first  of  four  particulars  enume- 
rated. Over  and  above  this  argument  derived  from  the  usual  distinction  of 
four  points  or  quarters,  there  is  another  furnishrnl  by  the  usage  of  the  pronoun 
these,  when  repealed  so  as  to  express  a  distributive  idea.  In  all  such  cases. 
these  and  these  means  some  and  others  ;  nor  is  there  probably  a  single 
instance  in  which  the  first  these  comprehends  the  whole,  while  the  others 
divide  it  into  parts.  This  would  be  just  as  foreign  from  the  Hebrew  idiom 
as  it  is  from  ours  to  say,  '  Some  live  in  Europe,  some  in  France,  some  in 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I  X.  181 

Holland,'  when  we  mean  that  some  live  in  Holland,  some  in  France,  and 
all  in  Europe.  The  proposed  construction  would  be  altogether  natural,  if 
!^^x  were  omitted  in  the  first  clause  ;  but  its  presence  cannot  be  accounted 
for,  if  that  clause  is  inclusive  of  the  other.  That  the  distributive  use  of  the 
demonstrative  is  not  confined  to  two  such  pronouns  only,  may  be  seen  from 
ch.  41  :  5,  where  the  singular  ^l  is  twice  repeated,  just  as  the  plural  ^^^5  js 
here,  and  in  a  connexion  which  admits  of  no  doubt  as  to  the  distributive 
import  of  all  three. — From  all  this  it  seems  to  follow  that  the  verse  most 
probably  contains  the  customary  distribution  of  the  earth  or  ln-avens  into 
four  great  quarters,  and  that  one  of  these  is  designated  by  the  ])hrase yrom 
nfar.  Which  one  is  so  described  can  only  be  determined  by  determining 
the  true  sense  of  the  other  three.  The  Missionary  in  China  is  therefore 
perfectly  correct  in  setting  aside  all  arguments  against  his  own  opinion 
founded  on  the  supposition  xhai  from  afar  must  mean  the  south  or  the  east. 
The  expression  is  so  vague  that  it  must  be  determined  by  the  others,  and 
cannot  therefore  be  employed  to  determine  them,  without  reasoning  in  a 
vicious  circle.  This  serves  to  show  that  the  question  aff^'r  all  is  of  no  great 
exegetical  importance,  since  in  eitlier  case  the  same  conclusion  may  be 
reached.  It  is  always  best,  however,  to  adhere  to  the  more  obvious  and 
usual  construction  of  a  passage,  in  the  absence  of  decisive  reasons  for  depart- 
ing from  it.  Assuming  then  that  four  points  are  mentioned,  and  that  the 
first  {from  afar')  can  only  be  determined  by  determining  the  others,  let  us 
now  attempt  to  do  so.  One  of  these  {the  nortfy)  is  undisputed  :  foi'  although 
interpreters  may  differ  as  to  its  precise  bounds  and  extent,  its  relative  posi- 
tion is  unquestionably  fixed  by  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew  v.'ord.  Another 
term,  which  most  interpreters,  and  among  the  rest  the  Missionary  in  Ciiina, 
seem  to  look  upon  as  equally  settler!  and  beyond  dispute,  is  more  ambiguous 
than  they  imagine,  and  has  recently  received  a  very  different  explanation. 
This  is  w- ,  which  strictly  means  the  sea,  but  is  often  used  for  west,  because 
on  that  side  Palestine  is  naturally  bounded  by  the  Mediterranean.  Hitzig, 
however,  very  confidently  says  that  here  and  in  Ps.  103  :  7,  where  it  is  put 
in  opposition  to  the  north,  "^1  means  the  soutii  sea,  and  as  a  term  of  geogra- 
phy the  south.  This  is  not  mentioned  as  having  any  probability,  of  which 
it  is  entirely  destitute,  because  the  geographical  import  of  the  term  is  not  to 
be  decided  by  the  parallelism  or  the  context  in  any  given  case,  but  by  the 
predominant  usage,  which  determines  it  to  mean  the  west,  and  so  it  is 
explained  both  by  the  oldest  and  the  latest  writers.  Having  two  points 
thus  determined,  we  are  sure  that  the  two  which  remain  must  be  the  east 
and  south  ;  and  as  we  have  already  seen  ih^i  from  afar  from  its  vagueness 
must  receive  but  cannot  give  light,  we  have  now  to  ascertain,  if  possible,  in 
which  of  these  directions  lay  the  land  of  Sinim.  The  discrepancy  of  the 
versions  as  to  these  concluding  words  is  remarkable,  and  shows  the  doubt  in 


182  CHAPTERXLIX. 

which  the  subject  was  involved  at  a  very  early  period.  The  Missionary  in 
China  makes  an  observation  on  this  difference  which  is  less  just  than  inge- 
nious, viz.  that  no  one  of  the  authors  of  these  versions  seems  to  have  regarded 
his  own  country  as  the  Land  of  Sinim  ;  "  for  it  can  scarcely  be  supposed," 
says  he,  "  that  the  authors  of  a  version  living  in  the  very  country  referred 
to,  should  so  utterly  fail  of  perceiving  it  as  to  give  the  preference  to  other 
lands."  It  is  not  easy  to  perceive,  however,  why  the  same  causes  that 
have  made  the  j)rophecy  obscure  to  others,  should  not  make  it  equally 
obscure  to  the  people  of  the  country  meant,  especially  if  the  name  used 
was  intended  to  be  enigmatical,  as  some  interpreters  supijose.  Indeed,  by 
parity  of  reasoning  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  if  the  author  of  the  Septua- 
gint  Version  had  supposed  it  to  be  Egypt,  this  would  have  decided  tlie 
question.  But  although  this  observation  does  not  seem  entitled  to  any  influ- 
ence upon  the  exegesis,  the  difference  between  the  ancient  versions,  as  well 
as  the  commentators  of  all  ages,  is  still  very  remarkable.  Without  atten)pt- 
ing  to  enumerate  all  the  explanations,  it  will  not  be  amiss  to  give  some 
samples  of  the  different  classes.  Some  would  seem  to  be  mere  conjectural 
inferences  from  the  context.  Thus  the  Targum  and  Vulgate  make  it  mean 
the  land  of  the  south  or  southern  land,  assuming  no  doubt  that  from  afar 
must  mean  the  east,  and  that  the  south  alone  remained  to  be  supplied. 
Proceeding  on  the  contrary  hypothesis,  that  from  afar  must  mean  the  south, 
the  Septuagint  puts  the  Land  of  Sinim  in  the  east,  but  gives  it  the  specific 
sense  of  Persia,  N\hich  appears  to  be  entirely  arbitrary.  The  same  thing 
may  be  said  of  Matthew  Henry's  notion  that  the  Land  of  Sinim  was  a 
Babylonian  province.  As  a  specimen  of  fanciful  interpretation,  may  be 
given  Adam  Clarke's  suggestion  ihat  as  '^o  means  a  bush,  nirp  may 
mean  bushes,  woods,  or  a  woody  country,  and  be  here  used  to  denote  the 
region  occupied  by  the  descendants  of  the  ten  tribes,  perhaps  in  West  Africa 
or  North  America  !  Dismissing  these  gratuitous  conjectures,  we  may  now 
confine  ourselves  to  those  interpretations  which  have  some  foundation  or 
appearance  of  it  either  in  philology  or  history.  Among  these  may  be  men- 
tioned, first,  the  supposition  that  the  land  of  Sinim  is  the  country  of  the 
Sinitcs  spoken  of  in  Gen.  10:  17  and  1  Chron.  1  :  15.  But  why  should  a 
Canaanitish  tribe  of  no  importance,  and  which  no  where  reappears  in  history, 
be  here  made  to  represent  one  of  the  four  quarters  of  the  globe  ?  This 
question  becomes  still  more  difficult  to  answer  when  it  is  added  that  the 
Sinites  must  have  been  immediately  adjacent  to  the  land  of  Israel,  and  on 
the  north  side  which  is  separately  mentioned.  Grotius  indeed  transfers 
them  to  the  south  side,  but  by  sheer  mistake,  and  for  the  purpose  of  connect- 
ing them  with  the  wilderness  of  Sin  and  Mount  Sinai,  which  are  wholly 
distinct  from  it.  Jerome  and  Jarchi  also  understand  the  Land  of  Sinim  to 
be  the  wilderness  of  Sin  or  the  peninsula  of  Sinai,  but  without  identifying 


CHAPTERXLIX.  183 

these  with  the  country  of  the  Canaanitish  Sinites,  as  Grotius  does.  To  their 
opinion  the  decisive  objection  is  not  the  one  which  the  Missionary  in  China 
draws  from  the  difference  of  name  and  from  the  plural  form  Siiiim.  That 
"there  were  not  two  deserts  of  Sin,"  proves  no  more  in  this  case  than  the 
assertion  that  there  were  not  two  Hermons  proves  against  the  application  of 
the  plural  Hermonim  to  that  mountain  in  Ps.  42  :  7.  If  a  luountain  might 
be  so  called,  why  not  a  desert  ?  And  if  Hermonim  means  Ilermonites,  why 
may  not  Sinim  mean  Sinites  ?  This  question  is  especially  appropriate, 
because  the  author  gives  no  explanation  of  the  plural  form,  upon  his  own 
hypothesis.  But  although  this  objection  is  invalid,  the  other  which  the 
author  urges  is  conclusive,  namely,  that  Sinai  and  the  wilderness  of  Sin  were 
too  near  and  too  limited  to  be  employed  in  this  connexion.  Another 
explanation  founded  on  analogy  of  names  is  that  of  Aben  Ezra,  Kimchi, 
Bochart,  Vitringa,  J.  D.  ]\Jichaelis,  and  Ewald,  that  the  land  of  Sinim 
is  the  land  of  Egypt,  so  called  from  Si/cnc,  as  Michaehs  supposes,  or 
from  Sin,  i.  e.  Pelusium,  mentioned  under  that  name  by  Ezekiel  (30:  15, 
16)  as  maintained  by  Bochart,  Vitringa,  and  Ewald.  Here  again 
it  seems  unfair  to  argue,  with  the  Missionary  in  China,  from  the  plural 
form  of  the  Hebrew  name  ;  for  if,  as  he  observes,  it  is  merely  fanciful  to 
refer  it  to  the  old  geographical  distinction  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt,  is 
it  not  more  than  fanciful  to  refer  it  to  China  where  there  is  no  such  dis- 
tinction to  account  for  it  at  all  !  If  it  be^'-said,  that  Sinim  means  the 
Chinese,  it  may  just  as  easily  be  said  that  it  means  the  Egyptians.  There 
is  no  force  therefore  in  the  argument  from  this  peculiarity  in  form,  any 
more  than  in  the  argument  which  the  Missionary  in  Ciilna  hiniself  admits 
to  be  here  inapplicable,  that  Egypt  was  not  sufficiently  important  to  be 
made  the  representative  of  one  great  quarter.  As  little  weight  attaches  to 
his  argument  that  this  interpretation  of  the  name  would  make  the  distribu- 
tion too  unequal  ;  for  as  he  adjusts  the  limits  of  the  north  and  even  of  the 
land  of  Sinim  at  discretion,  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  why  the  same  thing 
might  not  be  done  with  Sinim  if  it  did  mean  Egypt.  The  really  decisive 
ground,  assumed  by  the  same  writer,  is  that  Egypt,  notwithstanding  its 
extent  and  historical  importance,  was  too  near  at  hand  to  suit  the  context, 
which  requires  a  remote  land  to  be  here  meant,  whether /rom  afar  be  taken 
as  a  general  description  or  as  a  distinct  specification.  Another  strong  objec- 
tion is  that  no  cause  can  be  shown,  from  analogy  or  otherwise,  for  the  desig- 
nation of  this  well  known  country,  in  this  one  place  only,  by  a  name  derived, 
from  one  of  its  cities,  and  that  not  of  the  first  rank.  The  only  remaining 
explanation,  which  will  be  referred  to,  is  that  the  land  of  Sinim  is  China,  as 
maintained  by  Manasseh  Ben  Israel,  Montanus,  Calmet,  Gesenius,  Winer, 
Maurer,  Hitzig,  Henderson,  Umbreit,  Hendewerk,  Knobel,  and  Beck.  An 
objection  to  this  interpretation  is  suggested  to  some  minds  by  its  resemblance 


134  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I  X. 

to  an  etymological  conceit  founded  merely  on  an  assonance  of  names.  It 
was  prolnihly  this  prejudice  which  caused  it  to  be  spoken  of  with  such  con- 
tempt by  Grotius,  Clericus,  and  Vitringa.  But  in  modern  times,  the  cur- 
rent has  completely  changed,,  and  this  despised  notion  has  been  warmly 
espoused  not  only  by  the  most  distinguished  writers  on  Isaiah  (Rosenmiiller 
and  Ewald  being  almost  the  only  excepiions  in  the  German  school),  but  by 
the  most  eminent  comparative  jjhilologists,  such  as  Langles,  Lassen,  and 
others,  who  have  investigated  the  question  as  one  of  historical  and  literary 
interest.  The  only  plausible  objections  which  are  still  urged  against  it  may 
be  reduced  to  two.  The  first  is  that  China  was  unknown  to  the  Jews  at 
the  date  of  the  prophecy.  To  this  it  may  be  answered,  first,  Uiat  no  one 
who  believes  in  the  inspiration  of  the  prophets,  can  refuse  to  admit  the  pos- 
sil/ility  of  such  a  prediction,  even  if  the  fact  were  so  ;  and  secondly,  that  in 
all  probability  China  was  known  to  the  Jews  at  a  very  early  period.  The 
rashness  of  asserting  a  negative  in  such  cases  has  been  clearly  proved  by 
the  modern  discovery  of  porcelain  vessels  with  Chinese  inscriptions  in  the 
monuments  of  Thebes.  But  it  is  still  objected,  that  the  name  SiJiim  is  not 
that  used  by  the  Chinese  themselves,  nor  by  other  nations  until  long  after 
the  date  of  this  prophecy,  it  having  been  derived  from  a  family  w  hich  did 
not  ascend  the  throne  until  about  246  years  before  the  biith  of  Christ.  It 
is  remarkable  how  readily  this  date  in  Chinese  history  is  taken  for  granted 
as  undoubtedly  correct  by  those  who  wish  to  use  it  for  an  argument,  although 
it  rests  upon  a  dark  and  dubious  tradition  of  a  distant  unknown  country; 
although  the  very  text  before  us  makes  it  doubtful  ;  although  the  universal 
prevalence  of  the  name  Sin,  Chin,  or  Jin,  throughout  \\'estern  and  southern 
Asia  from  time  immemorial  presupposes  an  antiquity  still  more  remote  ;  and 
although  Chinese  historians  themselves  record  that  the  family  from  w  hich 
the  name  derives  its  origin,  for  ages  before  it  ruled  the  empire  ruled  a  pro- 
vince or  kingdom  on  the  western  frontier,  whence  the  name  might  easily 
have  been  extended  to  the  western  nations.  There  are  In  Aict  few  cases  of 
a  name  being  more  extensively  or  longer  prevalent  than  that  of  China,  the 
very  form  which  it  exhibits  in  the  Sanscrit,  the  mother  language  of  southern 
Asia.  That  the  Chinese  themselves  have  nev'er  used  it,  although  acquainted 
with  it,  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  A  Hebrew  writer  would  of  course  use 
the  name  familiar  in  the  west  of  Asia.  This  vmiversal  name  is  allowed  to 
be  essentially  identical  with  ""'o  by  the  highest  philological  authorities. 
There  is  therefore  no  conclusive  force  in  either  of  the  arguments  advanced 
against  this  explanation  of  the  name.  As  positive  reasons  on  the  other  side, 
'besides  the  main  one  drawn  from  the  coincidence  of  name,  may  be  men- 
>tioned  the  agreement  of  so  many  different  and  independent  writers,  and  the 
.appropriateness  of  the  ex[)lanatlon  to  the  context.  Under  the  first  head 
-may  be  classed  precisely  those  philologists  whose  pecidiar  studies  best  entitle 


CHAPTERXLIX.  185 

them  to  speak  with  autliority  on  such  a  point,  and  those  German  commen- 
tators on  Isaiah,  who  are  most  accustomed  to  diifer  among  themselves  and 
with  the  older  writers,  especially  where  any  thing  is  likely  to  be  added  by  a 
proposed  interpretation  to  the  strength  of  revelation  or  rather  to  the  clear- 
ness of  its  evidences.  Prejudice  and  interest  would  certainly  have  led  this 
class  of  writers  to  oppose  rather  tlian  favour  a  hypothesis  which  tends  to 
identify  the  subject  of  this  prophecy  with  China,  the  great  object  of  mis- 
sionary effort  at  the  present  day. — Tiie  other  confirmation  is  afforded  by  the 
suitableness  of  the  sense  thus  evolved  to  the  connexion.  If  the  land  of 
Sinim  meant  the  wilderness  of  Sin  or  even  Egypt,  it  would  be  diflicult  if  not 
impossible  to  give  a  satisfactory  solution  of  its  singular  position  here  as  one 
of  the  great  quarters  or  divisions  of  the  world.  But  if  it  mean  China,  that 
extreme  limit  of  the  eastern  world,  that  hive  of  nations,  supposed  to  com- 
prehend a  third  part  of  the  human  race,  the  enigma  explains  itself.  Even  to 
us  there  would  be  notliing  unintelligible  or  absurd,  however  strange  or  novel, 
in  the  combination,  north,  west,  south,  and  Cliina.  On  the  whole,  then,  a 
hypothesis  which  solves  all  difficulties,  satisfies  the  claims  of  philology  and 
history,  unites  the  sufli'ages  of  the  most  independent  schools  and  parties, 
fully  meets  the  requisitions  of  the  text  and  context,  and  opens  a  glorious  field 
of  expectation  and  of  effort  to  the  church,  may  be  safely  regarded  as  the 
true  one.  For  an  interesting  view  of  the  extent  to  which  the  promise  lias 
already  been  fulfilled,  and  of  the  encouragements  to  hope  and  pray  for  its 
entire  consummation,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  little  book,  of  which  we 
have  so  frequently  made  mention,  although  our  citations  have  been  neces- 
sarily confined  to  the  fiist  or  expository  chapter,  the  remaining  four  being 
occupied  witli  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy. 

V.  13.  Shout,  oh  heavens,  and  rejoice,  oh  earth,  let  the  mountains  hurst 
into  a  shout ;  because  Jehovah  has  comforted  his  jfcople,  and  on  his  sufferers 
he  will  have  mercy.  This  is  a  very  common  method  with  Isaiah  of  fore- 
telling any  joyful  change  by  summoning  all  nature  to  exult  in  it  as  already 
realized.  See  especially  ch.  44  :  '23,  where  instead  of  the  future  w:iS'i  we 
have  the  imperative  ^n^a  ,  in  imitation  of  which  the  Keri  here  reads  WJIS!! , 
and  Lowth  simply  iin^a  on  the  authority  of  two  or  three  manuscripts  and 
the  ancient  versions.  There  is  of  course  no  sullicient  reason  for  departing 
from  the  ancient  reading  still  preserved  in  the  text. — Jehovah's  consolation 
of  his  jieople,  as  Gesenius  observes,  is  administered  by  deed  as  well  as  by 
word.  (Compare  ch.  51:3,  12.  52  :  9.  66  :  13.  Luke  2  :  25,  38.)  The 
consolation  here  meant  is  the  joyful  assemblage  of  his  people  from  all  parts 
of  the  earth,  predicted  in  the  foregoing  verse. — The  modern  writers  render 
both  the  preterite  and  future  in  the  last  clause  by  the  present  (comforts,  has 
mercy)  ;  which  is  not  only  arbitrary  but  injurious  to  the  force  of  the  expres- 


186  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  IX. 

sion,  which  describes  the  consolation  as  both  past  and  future,  that  is  to  say 
as  already  begun  and  still  to  be  continued  ;  unless  the  change  of  tense  be 
designed  to  intimate  that  what  is  vividly  described  in  the  preceding  words 
as  past  is  really  still  future. — ":» ,  which  is  commonly  translated  in  the 
English  Bible  poor,  is  here  rendered  more  correctly  ajjlicted.  The  expres- 
sion his  ajflicied  intimates  at  once  their  previous  condition  and  their  intimate 
relation  to  the  Lord  as  their  protector. 

V.  14.  And(jei)  Zion  said,  Jehovah  hath  forsaken  me,  and  the  Lord 
hath  forgotten  me.  So  far  was  this  glorious  change  from  having  been  pro- 
cured by  confidence  in  God,  that  Zion  thought  herself  forsaken  and  forgotten. 
Those  who  restrict  these  prophecies  to  the  Babylonish  exile  are  compelled 
to  understand  this  either  of  the  captive  inhabitants  of  Zion,  as  distinguished 
from  the  other  exiles,  or  of  Jerusalem  itself,  complaining  of  its  desolation. 
But  the  former  distinction  is  as  arbitrary  here  as  in  ch.  40  :  9,  and  the  long 
argumentative  expostulation  which  ensues  would  be  absurd  if  addressed  to 
the  bare  walls  of  an  empty  town.  The  only  satisfactory  conclusion  is,  that 
Zion  or  Jerusalem  is  mentioned  as  the  capital  of  Israel,  the  centre  of  the  true 
religion,  the  earthly  residence  of  God  himself,  and  therefore  an  appropriate 
and  natural  emblem  of  his  chosen  people  or  the  ancient  church,  just  as  we 
speak  of  the  corruptions  or  spiritual  tyranny  of  Rome,  meaning  not  the  city 
but  the  great  ecclesiastical  society  or  corporation  which  it  represents  and  of 
which  it  is  the  centre. — The  translation  Zion  says,  although  not  ungram- 
raatical,  is  less  appropriate  here,  because  it  represents  the  church  as  still 
complaining ;  whereas  the  original  describes  her  previous  unbelief,  before 
the  event,  or  before  the  truth  of  the  promise  had  been  guaranteed.  It  is 
worthy  of  remark  that  the  same  translators  who  make  the  first  verb  present 
give  the  other  two  their  proper  past  sense,  a  diversity  admissible  in  case  of 
necessity,  but  not  without  it. 

V.  15.  Will  a  woman  forget  her  suckling,  from  having  mercy  (i.  e.  so 
as  not  to  have  mercy)  on  the  son  of  her  ivonih  ?  Also  (or  even)  these  ivill 
forget,  and  I  will  not  forget  thee.  The  constancy  of  God's  affection  for  his 
people  is  expressed  by  the  strongest  possible  comparison  derived  from  human 
instincts.  There  is  a  climax  in  the  thought,  if  not  in  the  expression.  What 
is  indirectly  mentioned  as  impossible  in  one  clause,  is  declared  to  be  real  in 
the  other.  He  first  declares  that  he  can  no  more  forget  them  than  a  woman 
can  forget  her  child,  he  then  rises  higher  and  declares  that  he  is  still  more 
mindful  of  them  than  a  mother.  The  future  verb  at  the  beginning  implies 
without  expressing  a  potential  sense.  If  she  will,  she  can  ;  if  she  cannot, 
then  of  course  she  will  not.  For  the  negative  use  of  the  preposition  ",^,  see 
above,  on  ch.  44  :  18. — "Ja  might  seem  to  have  the  general  sense  o(  body, 


CHAPTERXLIX.  187 

as  we  find  it  applied  to  males  in  Job  19:  17.  Mic.  6  :  7. — The  precise  force 
of  the  fi^  is  this  :  not  only  strangers  but  also  mothers  ;  it  may  therefore 
be  correctly  expressed  by  even.  Most  interpreters  make  the  first  part  of  the 
last  clause  conditional,  and  Gesenius  even  understands  cj  as  an  ellipsis  for 
13  ca  although.  (See  ch.  1  :  15.)  But  this  is  not  so  much  a  version  as  a 
paraphrase,  a  substitution  of  equivalent  expressions.  There  is  no  need  of 
departing  from  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  prophet's  language,  which  is  not 
hypothetical  but  categorical.  He  does  not  say  that  if  or  though  a  woman 
could  forget  her  child  he  would  not  follow  her  example,  but  asserts  directly 
that  she  can  and  will,  and  puts  this  fact  in  contrast  with  his  own  unwavering 
constancy.  The  plural  in  the  last  clause,  like  the  singular  in  the  first,  denotes 
the  whole  class.  He  does  not  say  that  all  mothers  thus  forget  their  children, 
nor  that  mothers  generally  do  so,  but  that  such  oblivion  is  not  unknown  to 
the  experience  of  mothers  as  a  class,  or  of  woman  as  an  ideal  individual. 
The  primitive  simplicity  with  which  the  Hebrew  idiom  employs  the  simple 
copulative  and,  where  we  feel  the  strongest  adversative  expression  to  be 
necessary,  really  adds  to  the  force  of  the  expression,  when  it  is  once  under- 
stood and  familiar.  The  atid  may  be  retained,  and  yet  the  antithesis 
expressed  in  English  by  supplying  yet :   and  (yet)  I  will  not  forget  thee. 

V.  16.  Behold,  on  (my)  palms  I  have  graven  thee  ;  thy  walls  (are) 
before  me  continually.  Paulus  understands  the  first  clause  as  meaning, 
upon  (thy)  hands  I  have  graven  (i.  e.  branded,  marked)  thee,  as  belonging 
to  me.  Gesenius  seems  to  object  to  this  construction  of  the  suffix  with  the 
verb,  although  precisely  similar  to  that  of  ii^  ::nD"i  in  v.  44  :  5,  as  explained 
by  himself.  His  other  objection  is  a  better  one,  viz.  that  such  an  explana- 
tion of  the  first  clause  makes  the  second  almost  unmeaning.  Doderlein 
explains  it  to  mean,  ivith  {my)  hands  I  have  sketched  (or  drawn)  thee,  in 
allusion  to  a  builder's  draught  or  plan  before  he  enters  on  the  work  of  con- 
struction. (Compare  Ex.  25  :  40.  1  Chron.  23  :  11,  19.)  But  this  use  of 
the  preposition  bt'  has  no  authority  in  usage, and  the  palms  of  the  hands  would 
not  be  mentioned  as  the  instruments  in  such  a  process.  Vitringa  avoids  both 
these  objections  by  supposing  the  plan  or  picture  to  be  drawn  upon  Jehovah's 
hands,  because  there  would  be  something  incongruous  in  representing  him 
as  using  paper  or  a  table.  The  Dutch  taste  of  this  excellent  interpreter  lets 
him  go  the  length  of  adding  that  the  divine  hands  are  to  be  conceived  of  as 
large  and  allowing  ample  room  for  such  a  delineation  as  the  one  supposed. 
The  true  sense  of  the  Prophet's  figure  seems  to  be  the  one  expressed  by 
Gesenius  and  other  modern  writers,  who  suppose  him  to  allude  not  to  a 
picture  or  a  plan  of  Zion  but  her  name  imprinted  on  his  hands  for  a  memorial, 
as  the  ancient  slave  and  soldier  wore  his  master's  name  but  for  a  ditferent 
purpose.   (See  above,  on  ch.  44  :  5.)     The  use  of  the  woid  palms  implies  a 


188  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  IX. 

double  inscription  and  in  an  unusual  position,  chosen  with  a  view  to  its  being 
constantly  in  sight.  Tlie  idea  of  a  picture  was  suggested  by  the  other  clause, 
considered  as  a  j)arallel  expression  of  the  same  thing  as  the  first.  Thy  walls, 
i.  e.  the  image  of  thy  walls  upon  my  hands.  But  this  is  not  necessarily  or 
certainly  the  true  relation  of  the  clauses,  which  may  be  considered  not  as 
parts  of  the  same  image  but  as  two  distinct  images  of  one  and  the  same  thing. 
The  essential  idea,  I  will  not  forget  thee,  may  be  first  expressed  by  saying, 
I  will  write  thy  name  upon  my  hands,  and  then  by  saying,  I  will  keep 
thy  walls  constantly  before  me,  i.  e.  in  my  sight  and  memory.  (See 
Ps.  16  :  8.  Is.  38  :  13,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  639.) — The  mention 
of  the  walls  is  no  proof  that  Zion  is  mentioned  merely  as  a  city,  since 
the  image  of  a  city  is  the  proximate  object  here  presented,  even  if  the 
object  which  it  symbolizes  be  the  church  or  chosen  people. 

V.  17.  Thy  sons  hasten  (to  thee)  ;  thy  destroyers  and  thy  wasters  shall 
go  out  from  thee.  This  is  the  proof  that  God  had  not  forsaken  her. 
Rosenmuller  follows  the  older  writers  in  translating  the  first  vei'b  as  a  future, 
which  is  wholly  arbitrary.  Gesenius  and  others  render  both  the  first  and 
last  verb  in  the  present  tense.  The  true  construction,  as  in  many  other 
cases,  seems  to  be  that  which  represents  the  process  as  begun  but  not  com- 
plete. Already  had  her  sons  begun  to  hasten  to  her,  and  ere  long  her  ene- 
mies should  be  entirely  departed.  The  Septuagint,  Targum,  and  Vulgate, 
seem  to  read,  instead  of  thy  sons  (T('??3),  thy  builders  (7^:2),  which  differs 
from  it  only  in  a  single  vowel,  and  agrees  well  with  the  parallel  expression, 
destroyers,  literally,  pullers  down.  Lowth  amends  the  text  accordingly  ; 
but  Vitiinga,  Gesenius,  and  the  later  writers,  adhere  to  the  masoretic  point- 
ino",  on  account  of  its  a^rreement  with  the  thoufrhts  and  words  of  vs.  20—22. 
— By  wasters  and  destroyers  Vitringa  understands  internal  enemies,  Gese- 
nius foreign  oppressors,  Knobel  the  strangers  who  had  taken  possession  of 
Jerusalem  and  the  rest  of  the  country,  which,  as  he  acknowledges,  it  here 
represents.  The  natural  interpretation  of  the  words  is  that  which  under- 
stands them  as  containing  simply  an  emphatic  contrast  between  friends  and 
foes,  the  latter  taking  their  departure,  and  the  former  coming  into  possession. 

V.  18.  Lift  up  thine  eyes  round  about  and  sec,  all  of  them  are  gathered 
together,  they  arc  come  to  thee.  {As)  I  live,  saith  Jehovah,  (I  swear)  that 
all  of  them  as  an  ornament  thou  shalt  put  on,  and  bind  (or  gird)  them  like 
the  bride.  The  sons,  described  in  v.  17  as  rapidly  approaching,  are  now 
in  sight,  and  their  mother  is  invited  to  survey  them,  by  lifting  up  her  eyes 
round  about,  i.  e.  in  all  directions,  with  allusion  to  their  coming  from  the 
four  points  of  the  compass,  as  predicted  in  v.  12.  The  common  version  of 
vh'3,  all  these,  seems  to  introduce  a  new  subject.     The  strict  translation,  all 


CHAPTERXLIX.  189 

of  them,  refers  to  what  precedes,  and  means  all  the  sons  who  are  described 
in  the  first  clause  of  v.  17  as  hastening  to  her.  They  are  now  already 
gathered,  i.  e.  met  together  at  the  point  to  which  they  tended  from  so  many 
distinct  quarters.  They  come  to  thee  is  an  inadequate  translation.  The  true 
sense  is  that  they  are  actually  come,  i.  e.  arrived. — In  the  second  clause, 
the  "^3  may  correspond  to  the  Greek  ozi  after  verbs  of  speaking,  or  retain  its 
ordinary  sense  with  an  ellipsis  of  I  swear  before  it.  The  formula  of  swear- 
ing here  used  strictly  means,  /  (am)  alive  (or  Jiving),  and  is  itself  equivalent 
to  I  sivear  in  English. — The  sons  are  then  compared  to  ornaments  of  dress, 
which  the  mother  girds  or  binds  upon  her  person.  At  the  end  Lowtli 
inserts  rj^t.?  in  the  text  from  ch.  61  :  10.  But  this  is  wholly  unnecessary, 
as  the  same  idea  is  suggested  by  the  more  concise  expressions  of  the  conmion 
text,  which  Lowth  is  utterly  mistaken  in  supposing  to  describe  the  bride  as 
binding  children  round  her  ;  for,  as  Doderlein  conectly  says,  the  point  of 
comparison  between  the  type  and  antitype  is  not  children  but  decoration. 
As  a  bride  puts  on  her  ornaments,  so  thou  shalt  be  adorned  with  thy  children. 

V.  1 9.  For  thy  ruins,  and  thy  wastes,  and  thy  land  of  desolation  (i.  e.  thy 
desolated  land) — for  now  thou  shalt  he  too  narroiv  for  the  inhabitant,  and 
far  off  shall  be  thy  devourers  (those  who  swallow  thee  up).  The  general 
meaning  of  this  verse  is  evident,  although  the  constiuction  is  obscure. 
Most  writers  take  the  nouns  at  the  beginning  as  absolute  nominatives,  i.  e. 
agreeing  with  no  verb  expressed.  As  for  thy  xvastes  etc.  thou  shalt  he  too 
narroio.  But  this  still  leaves  the  double  "3  to  be  accounted  for,  which 
Rosenmiiller  supposes  to  depend  upon  the  verb  I  swear,  as  in  v.  18,  and  to 
signify  that.  Maurer  regards  the  second  as  a  pleonastic  or  emphatic  repeti- 
tion not  belonging  to  the  regular  construction.  Others  give  it  the  supposi- 
titious sense  o(  certainly  ov  surely.  Beck  makes  the  first  clause  mean,  'thy 
ruins  and  thy  wastes  and  thy  desolations  shall  exist  no  longer ;'  but  this 
requires  another  verb  to  be  supplied  or  understood.  Perhaps  the  best  solu- 
tion is  the  one  proposed  by  Hitzig,  who  supposes  the  construction  to  be 
interrupted  and  resumed  :  For  thy  wastes,  and  thy  ruins,  and  thy  land  of 
desolation — (then  beginning  anew,  without  completing  the  first  sentence) — 
for  thou  shalt  be  too  narrow  etc.  This  mode  of  composition,  not  unhke 
what  appears  in  the  first  draft  of  any  piece  of  writing  till  obliterated  by 
correction,  is  comparatively  frequent  in  the  ancient  writers,  not  excepting 
some  of  the  highest  classical  models,  though  proscribed  as  inelegant  and 
incorrect  by  the  fastidious  rules  of  modern  rhetoric.  This  explanation  of 
the  double  "3  makes  it  unnecessary  to  assume  an  absolute  nominative  in  the 
first  clause.  Knobel  carries  liitzig's  hypothesis  too  far  when  he  assumes 
an  actual  ellipsis  of  the  same  verb  in  the  first  clause — "^"sri  (derived  bv 
Ewald  from  ^"^ ,  by  Gesenius  from  the  cognate  and  synonymous  "4"^)  can 


190  CH  A  PT  ER    XLIX. 

only  be  the  second  person  feminine.  The  common  version,  therefore, 
which  refers  it  to  the  land,  although  it  f;ives  substantially  the  true  sense,  is 
grammatically  incorrect. — -For  the  inhabitant  is  literally //-owi  the  inhabitant, 
the  Hebrew  preposition  being  here  used  as  in  I  Kings  19:7. — Knobel 
supposes  the  connexion  of  the  clauses  to  be  this,  that  there  would  not  be 
room  even  for  the  rightful  possessors,  much  less  for  strangers  and  enemies. 
For  the  application  of  the  verb  s^s  to  enemies,  see  Lam.  2:2,  5. — The 
(Jcvourcrs  of  this  verse  are  of  course  the  destroyers  of  v.  17. 

V.  20.  Aicnin  (or  still)  shall  they  say  in  thine  ears,  the  sojis  of  thy 
childlessness,  {Too)  narrow  for  me  is  the  place  ;  come  near  for  me,  and  I 
will  dicell  (or  that  I  may  dwell).     The  li:'  may  simply  indicate  that  some- 
thino-  more  is  to  be  said  than  had  been  said  before,  in  which  case  it  is  nearly 
equivalent  to  over  and  above  'this  or  moreover.     Or  it  may  have  its  true 
sense  as  a  particle  of  time,  and  intimate  that  these  words  shall  be  uttered 
more  than  once,  again  and  again,  or  still,  i.  e.  continually,  as  the  necessity 
becomes  more  urgent.     The  relative  position  of  the  verb  and  its  subject  is 
retained   in   the  translation,   as   it  causes  no  obscurity,  and   exhibits   more 
exactly  the  characteristic  form  of  the  original.     Jarchi  explains  the  sons  of 
thy  childlessness  to  mean  the  sons  of  whom  thou  wast  bereaved,  referring  to 
the  exiled  Jews.     The  later  writers  more  correctly  make  it  mean  the  sons 
of  thee  a  childless  one,  or,  thy  sons  oh  childless  one.     The  apparent  contra- 
diction is  intentional,  as  appears  from  what  follows.     She  who  was  deemed 
by  others,  and  who  deemed  herself,  a  childless  mother,  hears  the  voices 
of  her   children,  complaining    that    they  have  not  a    sufficient  space    to 
dwell  in. — In  thy  cars  means  in  thy  hearing,  although  not  addressed  to 
thee.      (Compare  2  Sam.  18 :  12.)     Even  in  ch.  5 :  9  the  idea  seems  to  be 
not  merely  that  of  hearing,  but  of  overhearing.     That  the  same  thing  is 
intended  in  the  case  before  us,  may  be  gathered  fron)  the  masculine  iroia , 
which  shows  that  they  shall  say  does  not  mean  they  shall  say  to  thee,  but 
they  shall  say  to  one  another.     Rosenmiiller  explains  "i:^  as  an  adjective  ; 
but  usage  and  authority  determine  it  to  be  a  verb,  the  contracted  form  of 
"t-.5£ ,  here  used  in  precisely  the  same  sense  as  the  future  of  the  same  verb  or 
a  cognate  root  in  the  preceding  verse.     The  idea  of  excess  (nimis,  too)  is 
not  expressed  as  in  that  case,  but  implied,  the  strict  translation  being  simply 
this,  the  place  is  narrow  for  me. — All  interpreters  agree  that  ''^■"i^a  means 
malce  room  for  me,  as  rendered  in  the  Septuagint  (noijjaov  nononov)  and  the 
Vulgate  (/flc  mihi  spatium)  ;  but  they  differ  in  explaining  how  this  sense 
may  be  extracted  from  the  Hebrew  words.     Gesenius,  as  in  many  other 
cases,  resorts  to  the  easy  supposition  of  a  word  inaccurately  used  to  express 
directly  opposite  ideas,  and  explains  the  verb,  both  here  and  in  Gen.  19:  9, 
as  meaning  to  recede  or  move  away  from  any  one.     But  even  if  the  general 


C  H  A  P  TE  R    XL  IX.  191 

usage,  which  he  alleges  to  exist  with  respect  to  verbs  of  motion,  were  more 
certain  than  it  is,  a  serious  difficulty  in  the  way  of  its  assumption  here  would 
be  presented  by  the  fact  that  in  every  other  case  excepting  these  two 
(which  may  be  regarded  as  identical),  the  verb  means  to  come  near  or  ap- 
proach.    Rosenniiiller  adheres  to  the  only  sense  authorized  by  usage,  and 
explains  the  phrase  to  mean,  Come  near  to  me,  that  there  may  be  more 
room,     Maurer  defends  this  explanation  of  the  word  (both  here  and  in  Gen. 
19:  9)  against  the  objections  of  Gesenius,  but  without  replying  to  the  main 
one,  namely,  that  the  sense  thus  given  to  the  words  is  inappropriate,  because 
the  person  speaking  demands  room  not  for  others  but  for  himself,  which  he 
could  not  possibly  secure  by  calling  on  his  neighbour  to  come  close  to  him. 
The  whole  difficulty  seems  to  have  arisen  from  assuming  that  "^^  means  to 
me,  and  denotes  the  direction  of  the  motion,  in  opposition  to  the  fact  that  h 
is  never  so  used  after  CS3 ,  but  always  indicates  the  purpose  or  design,  not 
only  when  prefixed  to  the  infinitive  (as  in  Lev.  21  :  21.  2  Kings  4  :  27),  but 
also  when  prefixed  to  frst^^'a ,  the  only  noun  with  which  it  is  connected  after 
this  verb,  and  with  which  it  signifies  not  to  the  battle  but  for  battle,  or  to 
fight,  being  equivalent  to  an  infinitive  construction.     The  only  cases,  there- 
fore, where  the  h  is  thus  used  (Judges  20:23.  2  Sam.  10:  13.   1  Chron. 
19:  14.  Jer.  46:3),  are  not  even  exceptions  to  the  rule,  but  strong  corro- 
borations of  the  staten)ent,  that  this  particle  when  added  to  the  verb  denotes 
the  object ybr  which,  not  the  place  to  which,  one  approaches.     This  induc- 
tion fully  justifies  the  explanation  of  the  phrase  before  us  given   by  Jarchi, 
*  approach  to  one  side   for  me  or  on  my   account'  ('i'3M  7rf'  7ii  3"?prr»), 
leaving  the  precise  direction  of  the  motion   undetermined,  to  express  which 
the  dominant  usage  of  the  language  would  require  the  preposition  ^n  .     The 
sense  just  given  to  ""h  (^forme)  is  the  more  probable,  because  it  is  precisely  that 
which  it  has  in  the  first  clause  of  this  verse  and  the  first  clause  of  the  next. — 
J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Ewald  take  nacx  in  its  primitive  sense  of  s2Y^r«_g-,  rather 
than  its  secondary  one  of  dwelling,  which  is  preferred  by  most  interpreters. 
The  former  version  makes  the  passage  still  more  graphic  by  presenting  the 
image  of  children  contending  for  a  seat,  and  calling  on  each  other,  in  the 
presence  of  their  mother,  to  make  room.     But  even  if  we  grant  that  there  is 
nothing  unworthy  or  incongruous  in  this  conception,  the  hypothesis  that  it 
was  here  intended  is  precluded  by  the  use  of  the  participle  affii^  in  the  verse 
preceding,  where  the  sense  of  inhabitant  is  rendered  necessary  by  its  close 
connexion  with  the  nouns  land,  wastes,  and  ruins. 

V.  21.  And  thou  shalt  say  in  thine  heart,  i.  e.  to  thyself,  in  strict 
agreement  with  the  preceding  verse,  as  a  dialogue  not  between  the  mother 
and  her  children,  but  between  the  children  in  their  mother's  hearing.  This 
is  consequently  not  an  answer  to  what  goes  before,  but  an  observation  uttered, 


19-2  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I  X . 

as  it  were,  aside  by  an  eye  and  ear  witness  of  the  struggle  and  the  clamour 
for  nioi'c  room.  With  them  the  question  is,  where  they  shall  dwell  ;  with 
her  it  is,  whence  they  came. —  Ji  ho  hath  produced  these  for  me  1  Interpreters 
have  vexed  themselves  with  the  inquiry  whether  ^\'^  here  means  to  bear  or 
to  beget,  or  in  other  words  whether  she  is  asking  for  the  father  or  the  mother 
of  the  children  whom  she  sees  around  her.  Vitringa,  Lowth,  GeseniuS; 
Ewald,  and  Umbreit,  who  prefer  the  former  sense,  suppose  an  allusion  to 
the  conjugal  relation  of  Jehovah  to  his  people,  and  to  the  repudiation  spoken 
of  below  in  ch.  50:  1.  But  such  allusion  seems,  in  this  connexion,  far- 
fetched and  unnatural.  Rosenmiiller,  Hitzig,  and  Knobel,  choose  the  other 
sense,  which  is  really  the  strict  and  common  one,  and  here  recommended  by 
the  (act  that  the  combination  p  "i?-;  is  often  applied  elsewhere  to  the  mother, 
but  never  to  tlie  father.  This  might  be  esteemed  conclusive,  but  for  two 
material  points  of  diflerence  between  the  cases  cited  and  the  one  before  us. 
The  first  is  that  in  these  cases  h  is  followed  by  the  name  of  the  father, 
whereas  here  the  speaker  is  supposed  to  be  a  woman.  The  other  is  that  in 
all  those  cases  the  verb  itself  is  feminine,  whereas  here  it  is  masculine.  But 
these  diversities,  although  they  leave  some  room  for  doubt  and  difference  of 
opinion,  do  not  necessarily  preclude  the  explanation  of  the  phrase  as  refer- 
ring to  the  mother.  The  masculine  form  of  the  verb  in  this  case  is  easily 
accounted  for  ;  because  its  nominative  is  not,  as  in  all  the  other  cases,  a 
female  name  or  other  feminine  noun,  but  the  interrogative  pronoun,  which  is 
invariable  and  naturally  followed  by  the  verb  in  its  original  or  simplest  form, 
not  because  tiiat  form  includes  both  genders,  but  because  both  verb  and  pro- 
noun are  used  vaguely,  without  any  distinct  reference  to  sex  at  all.  So  too 
the  use  of"""?  "i^"  by  a  female  speaker,  although  a  violation  of  analogy,  is  one 
very  easily  explained,  because  intentional  and  even  necessary  in  the  extra- 
ordinary case  supposed.  As  in  other  cases  the  mother  is  said  to  bear  a  child 
to  the  father,  so  in  this  case  one  mother  may  without  absurdity  be  said  to 
bear  a  child  to  another,  because  in  either  case  the  essential  idea  is  that  of 
one  person  being  provided  with  a  child  by  another,  whether  it  be  a  husband 
by  his  wife,  or  a  childless  woman  by  a  woman  who  has  children. — The 
truth  is,  however,  that  the  force  and  beauty  of  the  passage  are  exceedingly 
impaired  by  cutting  its  bold  figures  to  the  quick,  and  insisting  on  a  rigorous 
conformity  to  artificial  rules,  instead  of  resting  in  the  general  conception, 
so  clearly  and  alTectingly  presented,  of  a  childless  mother  finding  herself 
suddenly  surrounded  by  the  clamour  of  a  multitude  of  children,  and  asking 
in  amazement  whence  they  came  and  who  they  are.  The  distinction  be- 
tween father  and  mother  is  one  which  would  never  occur  to  the  speaker  in 
such  a  case,  and  may  therefore  be  safely  overlooked  by  the  interpreter. — 
The  cause  of  her  astonishment  is  then  assigned.  And  I  was  bereaved  and 
barren.     These  almost  incompatible  expressions  for  a  childless  one  are  joined 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  IX.  I93 

for   the   purpose   of  expressing  that  idea  in  the  strongest  manner,  and  with 
more  regard  to  the  idea  itself  than  to  the  rules  of  rhetorical  propriety. — An 
exile  and  a  banished  one.     The  last  word  strictly  means  removed,  i.  e.  from 
home  and  from  society. — And  these  who  brought  up  ?  literally  made  wreat, 
as  in  ch.  1  :  2.     The   general   sense    put  upon   i"^";  ""a  is  conhrmed  by  the 
analogy  of  this  phrase,  which  has  no  specific  reL'rence  to  either  parent,  and 
is  masculine   in   form  simply  because  there  was  no  reason  why  it  should  be 
feminine. — Behold,  I  was  left  alone  (or  by  myself)  ;   these,  where  ivere  they  ? 
The  pronoun  at  the  end  is  emphatic  :  where  were  they  1    She  asks  how  it  is 
that  she  was  so  long  desolate  and  childless,  when  she  sees  so  many  children 
round   her  now.     Rosenmiiller  changes  the  whole  figure  by  supposing  that 
long  absent  children  are  described  as  returning  to  their  mother  with  a  numer- 
ous offspring.     It  is  essential  to  the  writer's  purpose  that  the  children  should 
be  all  regarded  as  the  speaker's  own  ;  for  this  alone  could  afford  any  adequate 
ground  for  the  astonishment  expressed. — Some  of  the  modern  writers  find  it 
very  hard  to  reconcile  the  language  of  this  verse  with  their  hypothesis  that 
the  Zion  of  this  passage  is  the  forsaken  city  of  Jerusalem  as  such  considered. 
The  inconveniences  of  such  a  supposition  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact  that 
Knobel   represents  the  Prophet  as  departing  from  his  own  chosen  image  in 
tile  words  an  exile  and  a  banished  one,  which  are  of  course  inapplicable  to 
the  town  itself,  and  then  returning  to  it  in  the  words  I  was  left  alone,  which 
readily   admit  of  such   an  application.     If  such  abrupt  transitions  may  be 
assumed  at  pleasure,  how  can  any  thing  be  proved  to  be  the  sense  intended 
by  the  author  ?     The  very  fact  that  they  are  necessary  on  a  given  supposition. 
is  a   strong  proof  that  it  is  a  false  one,  and  ought  to  be  exchanged  for  one 
which  is   equally  consistent  with  all  the  parts  of  the  description.     Such  is 
the  hypothesis  assumed  as  the  basis  of  our  exposition,  viz.  that  the  Zion  of 
this  context   is    the   ancient   church  or  chosen  peopie,  represented  both  in 
fiction  and  in  fact  by  the  Sanctuary  and  the  Holy  City,  as  its  local  centre 
and   appointed  symbol.      Of  this  ideal  subject,   desolation,  childlessness, 
captivity,  exile,  and  the  other  varying  conditions  here  described,  may  all  be 
predicated  with  the  same  propriety.     U  this,  however,  be  the  true  exegetical 
hypothesis,  and  no  other  seems  to  answer  all  the  requisitions  of  the  case, 
then  the  Babylonish  exile,  and  the  state  of  the  church  at  that  period  of  her 
history,  has   no  claim  to  be  recognised  as  any  thing  more  than  a  particular 
exemplification  of  the  general  promise,  that  the  church,  after  passing  through 
extreme   depression   and   attenuation,  should  be  raised  up  and  replenished 
like  a  childless  mother  who  suddenly  finds  herself  surrounded  by  a  lar^e  and 
joyous  family  of  children. 

V.  22.    VYtus   saith   the  Lord  Jehovah,   Behold,  I  will  lift  up  to  the 
nations  my  hand,  and  I  loill  set  up  to  the  peoples  my  standard  (or  signal)  : 

13 


]  94  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I  X  . 

and  they  icill  bring  ihij  sons  in  (he  bosom  (or  arms),  and  ihy  daughters  on 
the   shoulders   shall  be  carried.     The  idea  expressed  by  the  figures  of  the 
first  clause  is   that   of  suinnioning   the  nations  to  perform  their  part  in  this 
great  work.     The  figures  themselves  are  the  same  as  in  ch.  13:2,  viz.  the 
shaking   or  waving  of  the  hand  and  the  erection  of  a  banner,  pole,  or  other 
signal,  with  distinct  reference  perhaps  to  persons  at  a  distance  and  at  hand. 
The  figurative  promise  would  be  verified  by  any  divine  influence  securing 
the  co-operation  of  the  heathen  in  accomplishing  Jehovah's  purpose,  whatever 
might  be  the  external  circumstances  either  of  the  call  or  their  compliance 
with  it.     The  effect  of  that  compliance  is  described  in  the  last  clause,  as  the 
bringing  home  of  Zion's  sons  and  daughters,  with  all  the  tender  care  which 
is  wont  to  be  lavished  upon  infants  by  their  parents  or  their  nurses.     The 
same  image  is  again  presented  in  ch.  60 :  4.  66:  12.     Peculiar  to  this  case 
is  the  use  of  the  word  '^h,  which  seems  most  probably  to  signify  either  the 
bosom  or  the  arm,  when  spoken  of  in  reference  to  carrying  and  especially 
the  carrying  of  children.     Strictly  perhaps  the  word  expresses  an  idea  inter- 
mediate between  arm  and  bosom,  or  including  both,  viz.  the  space  enclosed 
by  tbem  in  the  act  of  grasping  or  embracing.     This  likewise  seems  to  be  the 
sense   of  the  cognate   "jsn  which   occurs  in  Ps.    129:7.     The  only  other 
instance  of  the  form  '^'n  is  Neh.  5 :  13,  where  it  is  rendered  lap,  and  evi- 
dently signifies  some  part  of  the  dress,  perhaps  the  wide  sleeve  of  an  oriental 
garment,  which  would  connect  it  with  the  meaning  arm,  but  more  probably 
the  bosom  of  the  same.      According  to  Rosenmiiller  it  denotes  any' curvature 
or  fold   of  the   body  or  the  dress,  like  the  Latin  sinus.     That  the  sense  of 
bosom  is  at  least  included  here,  may  be  inferred  from  the  analogy  of  Num. 
n  :  12  and  Ruth  4  :  16,  where  the  same  act  is  described  by  the  use  of  the 
unambiguous  term  "^^n  .  Gesenius's  translation,  aj-m,  is  therefore  too  restricted. 
It  is  somewhat  curious  that  Hitzig,  while  he  renders  this  word  bosom,  uses 
i'rm  as  an  equivalent  to  Cin:^ ,  which  is  an  arbitrary  explanation  of  the  common 
word  for  shoulder,  and  one  so  often  mentioned  in  connexion  with  the  act  of 
bearing  burdens.   (See  above,  ch.  30:  6.  46:  7.   Ezek.  12:  6.  INum.  7  :  9.) 
Arm,  however,  is  a  favourite  word  witli  Hitzig,  who  substitutes  it  frequently 
for  hand,  without  the  least   necessity  or  reason.     Those  who  restrict  the 
promise  to  the  exiled  Jews  in  Babylon  are  under  the  necessity  of  making 
this  a  restoration,  which  is  not  only  perfectly  gratuitous  but  inconsistent  with 
the  verse  preceding,  where  these  same  children  are  described  as  appearing 
for  the  first  time  and  thereby  exciting  the  surprise  of  the  forsaken  mother. 

V.  23.  And  kings  shall  be  thy  nursing  fathers,  and  their  queens  thy  nuis- 
ing  mothers ;  face  to  the  ground  shall  thty  bow  to  thee,  and  the  dust  of  thy 
feet  shall  they  lick ;  and  thou  shalt  know  that  I  am  Jehovah,  whose  waiters 
(or  hopers,  i.  e.  those  who  trust  in  him)  shall  not  be  ashamed  (or  disappointed). 


CH  A  P  T  E  R    XL  IX.  ]  95 

The  same  promise  is  repeated  in  substance  with  a  change  of  form.     Instead 
of  the  nations,  we  have  now  their  kings  and  queen?  j  and  instead  of  Zion's 
sons  and  daughters,  Zion   herself.     This  last  variation,  while  it  either  per- 
plexes or  annoys   the   rhetorical   precisian,  aids  the  rational  interpreter  by 
showing  that   the   figures  of  the  preceding  verse,  however  natural  and  just, 
are  not  to  be  rigidly  explained.     In  other  words,  it  shows  that  between  the 
Zion   of  this   passage  and  her  children  there  is  no  essential  difference,  and 
that  what  is  promised  to  the  one  is  promised  to  the  other.     This  identity  is 
clear  from  the  apparent  solecism  of  representing  the  bereaved  and  childless 
mother  as  herself  an  infant  in  the  arms  and  at  the  breast,  because  really  as 
much   in    need  of  sustenance  and  care  as  those  before  called  her  sons  and 
daughters,  or  i-ather  because  she  is  but  another  figure  for  the  same  thin"^. 
This  confusion  of  imagery  all  tends  to  confirm  the  supposition  that  the  Zion 
of  these   prophecies  is  not  a  city,  which  could  scarcely  be  thus  confounded 
with   its  citizens,   but  a  society  or  corporation,  between  which  as  an  ideal 
person  and  its  individual  inembers  or  any  given  portion  of  them,  there  is  no 
such  well   defined   and   palpable   distinction. — )-qi(. ,  to  v/hich   the  En<dish 
Version   and  some  others  give  the  sense  o(  nourishers,  is  now  explained  to 
mean    a  carrier  or  bearer,    which    last  name  is  applied  by  the  En<>-lish  in 
Hindoslan  to  the  male  nurses  of  their  children.     Some  regard  it  as  equivalent 
to  ncuSayayog  (Gal.  3  :  24),  and  as  referring  to  a  later  period  of  childhood 
than  ^T'T^.  which  is  properly  a  suckler  or  wet-nurse.     But  as  there  is  nothing 
in  the  text  to  suggest  the  idea  of  succession  in  time,  they  may  be  reoarded 
as  poetical  equivalents.     Hitzig's  notion  that  the  kings  and  queens  are  merely 
represented   as   the   servile  attendants   of  Zion  is  forbidden  by  the  specific 
offices  ascribed  to  them.      As  little  can  it  be  supposed  with  Knobel,  that  she 
is  here  to  be  conceived  of  as  a  queen  upon  her  throne,  who  could  scarcely  be 
supposed  to  need  the  tender  attentions  of  a  bearer  and  a  wet-nurse.     The 
image  is  still  that  of  a  tender  infimt,  with  an  almost  imperceptible  substitution 
of  the   mother  for  her  children  — n^^ix  d-qn  is  a  kind  of  compound  adverb 
like  our  English  phrases  sword-in-hand,  arm-in-arm,  but  still  more  concise. 
The  addition  of  these  words  determines  the  meaning  of  the  precedino-  verb  as 
denoting  actual  prostration,  which  is  also  clear  from  the  next  clause    where 
the  licking  of  the  dust  cannot  be  naturally  understood  as  a  strong  expression 
for  the  kissing  of  the  feet  or  of  the  earth  in  token  of  homafe   but  is  rather 
like  the  biting  of  the  dust  in  Homer,  a  poetical  description  of  complete  and 
compulsory  prostration,  not  merely  that  of  subjects  to  their  sovereign,  but 
of   vanquished   enemies   before   their  conquerors.      (Compare  Mic.  7-17 
Ps.  72  :  9.)      Tn  the  last  clause  -'I'H  is  not  a  conjunction,  meaning  that  or  for, 
but  as  usual  a  relative,  to  be  connected   with   \"'p  in   construction,  ivho  my 
hopers,  i.  e.  whose  hopers,  those  who  hope  in  me. 


1 96  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    X  L  I  X  . 

V.  24.  Shall  the  preij  he  taken  from  the  mighty,  and  shall  the  captivity 
of  the  righteous  be  delivered  1  This  verse  suggests  a  difficulty  in  the  way 
of  the  fulfihnent  of  the  promise,  n'-p^-c  and  "^^a  are  combined  likewise  else- 
where to  describe  wdiatever  can  be  taken  in  war,  including  prisoners  and 
booty.  (Num.  31  :  11,  12,  27,  32.)  -::':J ,  though  properly  an  abstract,  is 
continually  used  as  a  collective  term  for  captives.  Its  combination  here 
with  p'"n^  has  perplexed  interpreters.  Houbigant,  Lowth,  Ewald,  and 
Knobel  read  "i'"'"]^'  "^^ffl  ,  as  in  the  next  verse,  which  is  a  mere  subterfuge. 
Rosenmiiller  follows  Albert  Schultens  in  giving  to  p"''^s  the  sense  of  rigid, 
stern  severe  ;  which  is  not  in  the  least  justified  by  Hebrew  usage.  Beck 
follows  J.  D.  iMichaelis  in  explaining  it  to  mean  vic\orious  according  to  the 
sense  of  t'i^^ory  now  commonly  put  upon  P1.^. ,  notwithstanding  the  objection 
of  Gesenius  that  there  is  no  authority  in  usage  for  the  application  of  this 
term  to  the  successes  of  the  wicked,  without  regard  to  its  original  import. 
Svmmachus,  Jarchi,  Aben  Ezra,  and  Hitzig,  understand  the  phrase  to  mean 
the  rio-hteous  captives,  i.  e.  the  exiled  Jews.  Gesenius,  Maurer,  and  Um- 
breit,  the  prey  or  plunder  of  the  righteous,  i.  e.  taken  from  the  righteous. 
But  this  explanation  of  ^y^_  is  harsh,  and  the  parallelism,  as  well  as  the 
analoo-y  of  v.  25,  requires  that  p"^"^^  should  be  referred  to  the  subject  not  the 
object  of  the  action.  The  English  Version  makes  it  agree  directly  with  •^::ii3 , 
in  the  sense  of  lawful  captive,  i.  e.  one  who  has  been  lawfully  enslaved,  or 
one  who  deserves  to  be  a  captive.  The  simplest  and  most  obvious  con- 
struction of  the  words  is  that  which  makes  them  mean  the  captives  of  a 
rio-hteous  conqucior.  The  argument  may  then  be  stated  thus  :  Shall  the 
cnptiveseven  of  a  righteous  conqueror  be  freed  in  such  a  case?  How  much 
more  the  captives  of  an  unjust  oppressor ! 

V.  25.  For  thus  saith  Jehovah,  also  (or  even)  the  captivity  (or  captives) 
of  the  mighty  shall  be  taken,  and  the  prey  of  the  terrible  shall  be  delivered, 
and  loith  thy  strivers  will  I  strive,  and  thy  sons  ivill  I  save.  There  is  no 
need  of  giving  to  the  ^3  at  the  beginning  the  factitious  sense  of  yes,  no,  nay, 
more,  veVily,  or  the  like.  Its  proper  meaning  may  be  retained  by  supplying 
in  thought  an  aflirmative  answer  to  the  foregoing  question.  Shall  the  cap- 
tives of  the  righteous  be  delivered  ?  Yes,  and  more  ;  for  thus  saith  Jehovah, 
not  only  this  but  also  the  captives  of  the  tyrant  or  oppressor.  There  is  a 
very  material  difference  between  supplying  what  is  not  expressed  and 
changing  the  meaning  of  what  is.  The  latter  expedient  is  never  admissible  ; 
the  former  is  often  necessary.  The  logical  connexion  between  this  verse 
and  the  one  before  it  has  been  already  stated.  Its  general  sense  is  clear,  as 
a  solemn  declaration  that  the  power  of  the  captor  can  oppose  no  real  obsta- 
cle to  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  of  deliverance.  The  same  idea  is 
expressed  in  the  last  clause  in  more  general  and  literal  terms. 


CHAPTERL.  197 

V.  26.  Aiid  I  loUl  make  thy  oppressors  eat  their  (own)  jicsh,  and  as 
with  new  ivine,  loith  their  blood  shall  they  he  drunh'cn  ;  and  all  jiesh  shall 
Jcnoiv,  that  I,  Jehovah,  am  thy  Saviour,  and  (ihat^  thy  Redeemer  is  the 
Mighty  One  of  Jacob.  The  first  clause  is  commonly  explained  as  a  strong 
metaphorical  description  of  intestine  wars  and  mutual  destruction,  similar  to 
that  in  Zech.  11  r  9.  In  this  case,  however,  as  in  ch.  9:19,  the  image  is 
perhaps  rather  that  of  a  person  devouring  his  own  flesh  in  impotent  and  de- 
sperate rage.  The  Targum  gratuitously  changes  the  sense  by  interpreting 
the  first  clause  to  mean,  'I  will  give  their  flesh  for  food  to  the  birds  of 
heaven,'  or,  as  Jarchi  has  it,  '  to  the  beasts  of  the  field.'  The  last  clause 
winds  up  this  part  of  the  prophecy  by  the  usual  return  to  the  great  theme 
of  the  whole  book,  the  relation  of  Jehovah  to  his  people,  as  their  Saviour, 
Redeemer,  and  Protector,  self-existent,  eternal,  and  almighty  in  himself,  yet 
condescending  to  be  called  the  Mighty  One  of  Jacob.  The  last  words  may 
be  construed  as  a  single  proposition,  '  that  1  am  Jehovah  thy  Saviour  and  thy 
Redeemer  the  Mighty  One  of  Jacob.'  This  will  be  found  upon  comparison, 
however,  to  express  much  less  than  the  construction  above  given,  which 
asserts  not  only  that  the  speaker  is  Jehovah  etc.  but  that  the  Being  who 
possesses  these  attributes  is  the  peculiar  covenanted  God  of  Israel  or  Jacob. 
For  the  different  epithets  of  this  clause,  see  above,  ch.  1  :  2^1,  41  :  14,  43  :  3. 
For  a  similar  statement  of  the  purpose  of  God's  providential  dealings  with 
his  people,  see  ch.  45  :  3,  and  v.  23  of  this  same  chapter. 


CHAPTER    L 


This  chapter  contains  no  entirely  new  element,  but  a  fresh  view  of 
several  which  have  already  been  repeatedly  exhibited.  The  first  of  these 
is  the  great  truth,  that  the  sufferings  of  God's  people  are  the  necessary  fruit 
of  their  own  sins,  vs.  1.  The  second  is  the  power  of  Jehovah  to  accom- 
plish their  deliverance,  vs.  2,  3.  The  third  h-  the  Servant  of  Jehovah,  his 
mission,  his  qualifications  for  it,  his  endurance  of  reproach  and  opposition  on 
account  of  it,  vs.  4-9.  The  fourth  is  the  way  of  salvation  and  the  certain 
doom  of  those  who  neglect  it,  vs.  10,  11. 

This  perpetual  recurrence  of  the  same  great  themes  in  various  combi- 
nations makes  the  mere  division  of  the  chapters  a  comparatively  unimpor- 
tant matter,  although  some  writers  seem  to  attach   great  importance  to  the 


198  CHAPTERL. 

separation  of  the  first  three  verses  from  what  follows,  and  their  intimate  con- 
nexion witli  what  goes  before.  It  should  be  ever  borne  in  mind  that  these 
divisions  are  conventional  and  modern,  and  that  in  this  part  of  Isaiah  more 
especially  ihey  might  have  been  omitted  altogether  without  any  serious 
inconvenience  to  the  reader  or  inlerpretei-.  A  much  greater  evil  than  the 
want  of  these  divisions  is  the  habit  of  ascribing  to  them  undue  authority  and 
suffering  the  exposition  to  be  governed  by  them,  as  if  each  were  a  separate 
prediction  or  discourse,  instead  of  being  arbitrary  though  convenient  breaks 
in  a  continued  composition,  not  materially  differing  from  the  paragraphs  now 
used  in  every  modern  book.  The  re-arrangement  of  the  chapters  in  the 
present  case  would  answer  no  good  purpose,  since  the  first  three  verses  are 
not  more  closely  connected  with  the  end  of  the  preceding  chapter  than  what 
follows  Is  with  its  beginning.  The  true  course  is  to  make  use  of  the  common 
divisions  as  convenient  pauses,  but  to  read  and  expound  the  text  as  one  con- 
tinuous discourse. 

V.  1.  Thus  saith  Jthovah.  This  prefatory  formula  lias  no  doubt  had 
some  Influence  on  the  division  of  the  chapters.  It  does  not,  however,  always 
indicate  the  introduction  of  a  new  subject,  as  may  be  seen  by  a  comparison 
of  ch.  48  :  17  with  ch.  49  :  I. —  Where  is  or  ivhat  is  1  'i^,  by  itself  Is  the 
Interrogative  adverb  ivhcrel  When  joined  with  t~>7 ,  it  seems  to  be  equiva- 
lent to  our  Interrogative  ivhat  or  which,  but  aKvays  with  reference  to  place, 
and  for  the  most  ])art  with  a  noun  of  place  following.  The  most  frequent 
combination  Is,  which  way  1  This  leaves  it  doubtful  whether  it  is  used  In 
the  general  sense  of  what,  as  explained  by  Ewald,  or  in  the  more  specific 
one  of  what  place  I.  e.  ichere,  preferred  by  Gesenlus  and  most  other  writers. 
This  Is  a  question  of  but  little  moment  as  to  the  general  meaning  of  the  sen- 
tence ;  since  the  question  '  where  Is  it? '  as  we  shall  see  below.  Is  here  sub- 
stantially equivalent  to  'what  is  it?' — The  bill  of  divorcement,  ViteraWy, 
writing  of  excision  or  repudiation,  translated  in  the  Septuagint  §i^h'ov  tov 
«;70(77«ct/oi',  which  form  is  retained  in  the  New  Testament  (Alatth.  19:7. 
Mark  10  :  4)  though  sometimes  abridged  (]Mattl).  5  :  31).  The  Hebrew 
phrase  denotes  the  legal  instrument  by  which  the  Mosaic  law  allowed  a 
husband  to  repudiate  his  wife  (Deut.  24  :  1-3). —  Of  your  mother.  The 
persons  addressed  are  the  Individual  members  of  the  church  or  nation  ;  their 
mother  is  the  church  or  nation  itself.  These  are  of  course  distinguished 
from  each  other  only  by  a  poetical  figure. —  Whom  I  have  sent  (or  jmi) 
away.  These  words  admit  of  a  twofold  construction.  AccoTding  to  the 
common  Hebrew  idiom,  the  relative  pronoun,  wiien  the  object  of  a  verb,  is 
followed  by  the  personal  pronoun  which  It  represents.  According  to  this 
id\om,  whom  I  have  sent  her  means  nothing  more  that  whom  I  have  sent, 
except  that  It  more  distinctly  Indicates  the  gender  of  the  object.     This  con- 


CHAPTERL.  199 

slruction  is  recommended  here,  not  only  by  its  strict  conformity  to  general 
usage,  but  by  its  recurrence  in  the  very  next  clause,  where  ib  c=rs  ■n-i3T3  irx 
is  agreed  on  all  hands  to  mean  to  ivhom  I  sold  you.  But  as  the  verb  to  send 
governs  two  accusatives  in  Hebrew,  the  relative  may  take  the  place  of  one 
of  them,  denoting  the  end  for  which  or  the  means  by  which,  as  it  actually 
does  in  ch.  55  :  11.  2  Sam.  1  I  :  22.  1  Kings  14  :  6,  and  in  the  case  before 
us,  according  to  the  judgment  of  most  modern  writers,  who  explain  the 
words  to  mean  wherewith  I  have  sent  her  away. — The  use  of  the  disjunc- 
tive or  in  Hebrew  is  comparatively  rare,  and  consequently  more  significant 
when  it  does  occur,  as  in  this  case,  where  it  seems  designed  to  intimate  that 
the  two  figures  of  the  clause  are  to  be  taken  separately,  not  together,  that  is 
to  say  that  the  punishment  of  the  people  is  not  compared  to  the  repudiation 
of  a  wafe  and  the  sale  of  her  children  in  the  same  ideal  case,  but  represented 
by  the  two  distinct  emblems  of  a  wife  divorced  and  children  sold.  Or  which 
of  my  creditors  (is  it)  to  whom  I  have  sold  yotil  We  have  here  an  allusion 
to  another  provision  of  the  Mosaic  law,  which  allows  debtors  to  be  sold  in 
payment  of  their  debts  (Matt.  18  :  25),  and  even  children  by  their  parents 
(Exod.  21  :  7). — The  answer  follows  in  the  other  clause.  Behold,  for 
your  iniquities  ye  have  been  sold.  The  reflexive  meaning,  ye  have  sold 
yourselves,  is  frequently  expressed  by  this  form  of  the  verb,  but  not  inva- 
riably nor  even  commonly  ;  it  is  not,  therefore,  necessary  here,  nor  even 
favoured  by  the  parallelism,  as  the  corresponding  term  is  a  simple  passive  of 
a  different  form,  and  one  which  cannot,  from  ihe  nature  of  the  case,  denote 
a  reflexive  or  reciprocal  action. — And  for  your  transgressions.  Vitringa's 
suggestion,  that  one  of  the  parallel  terms  may  signify  civil  and  the  other 
religious  offences,  is  entirely  gratuitous.  Your  mother  has  been  sent  (ov  put) 
away.  The  repetition  of //ou/-,  where  Aer  transgressions  might  have  been 
expected,  only  serves  to  show  more  clearly  the  real  identity  of  those  who 
are  formally  distinguished  as  the  mother  and  the  children. — The  interroga- 
tion in  the  first  clause  of  this  verse  has  been  variously  understood.  Jerome 
and  the  Rabbins  explain  it  as  an  indirect  but  absolute  negation,  implying 
that  she  had  not  been  divorced  at  all,  but  had  wilfully  forsaken  her  husband, 
and,  as  Abarbenel  says,  gone  out  from  his  house  of  herself  or  of  her  own 
accord  (p'3:)  iv  T>i>i^  OPiuy  i>'7>).  This,  tliou'j;h  a  good  sense  in  itself,  is  not 
an  obvious  one,  or  that  which  the  words  would  readily  suggest.  If  this  had 
been  the  writer's  meaning,  and  he  had  chosen  to  express  it  in  the  form  of 
an  interrogation,  he  would  more  probably  have  said,  Have  I  given  your 
mother  a  bill  of  divorcement  ?  Have  1  sold  you  to  my  creditors?  Besides, 
the  explanation  of  this  clause  as  an  absolute  negation  is  at  variance  with  the 
j)ositive  statement  in  the  last  clause  that  she  had  been  put  away,  as  well  as 
with  the  parallel  assertion  that  they  had  been  sold,  which  last  indeed  may 
be  explained  away  by  adopting  the  reflexive  sense,  but  no  such  explanation 


•200  CHAPTER    L. 

is  admissible  in  the  other  case.  In  order  to  avoid  this  objection,  some 
explain  the  clause  not  as  an  absolute  negation  but  a  qualified  one.  Thus 
Vitringa  understands  it  to  mean  that  she  iiad  been  put  away  and  they  sold, 
not  by  him,  i.  e.  not  by  the  husband  and  the  father,  but  by  judicial  process, 
which  he  undertakes  to  reconcile  with  ancient  Jewish  usage  by  the  authority 
of  Buxtorf  and  Seldcn.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  the  qualification,  which 
is  needed  to  reconcile  the  clauses,  is,  in  this  interpretation,  wholly  sup- 
plied by  the  imagination  of  the  reader  or  interpreter,  without  the  least 
foundation  in  the  text  or  context.  The  same  remark  applies,  though 
in  a  less  degree,  to  the  modification  of  this  negative  hypothesis  by  Grotius, 
who  supposes  it  to  be  denied  that  she  had  been  divorced  without  sufli- 
cient  reason,  and  by  Gesenius,  who  explains  it  as  denying  that  she  had 
received  a  bill  or  writing  of  the  ordinary  kind.  Tlie  difficulty  common  to 
all  these  hypotheses  is  that  the  qualification  assumed  is  altogether  arbitrary 
and  dependent  on  the  fancy  or  discretion  of  the  reader. — This  is  equally 
true  of  some  interpretations  which  assume  that  she  had  been  put  away,  for 
example  that  of  Hitzig,  who  ingeniously  supposes  that  the  bill  of  divorce- 
ment is  called  for  that  it  may  be  cancelled,  and  the  creditor  that  he  may  be 
paid.  The  most  emphatic  and  significant  portion  of  the  sentence  is  in  this 
case  not  expressed  at  all,  and  never  would  occur  to  any  reader  but  the  one 
whose  ingenuity  invented  it. — The  simplest  and  most  obvious  interpretation 
of  the  first  clause  is  the  one  suggested  by  the  second,  which  evidently  stands 
related  to  it  as  an  answer  to  the  question  which  occasions  it.  In  the  present 
case,  the  answer  is  wholly  unambiguous,  viz.  that  they  were  sold  for  their 
sins,  and  that  she  was  put  away  for  their  transgressions.  The  question 
naturally  corresponding  to  this  answer  is  the  question,  why  the  motlier  was 
divorced,  and  why  the  sons  were  sold.  Supposing  this  to  be  the  substance 
of  the  first  clause,  its  form  is  very  easily  accounted  for.  Ifhtre  is  your 
mother's  bill  of  (J  iv  or  cement  1  produce  it  that  we  may  see  the  cause  of  her 
repudiation.  Where  is  the  creditor  to  whom  I  sold  xjoul  let  him  appear 
and  tell  us  what  was  the  occasion  of  your  being  sold.  Gesenius's  objection, 
that  the  Jewish  bills  of  divorcement  did  not  state  the  cause,  is  trivial,  even  if 
the  fact  alleged  be  admitted  to  be  true,  for  which  there  is  no  sufficient  reason. 
The  objection  that  God  could  not  have  a  creditor,  from  which  some  have 
argued  that  the  first  clause  must  be  negatively  understood,  has  no  more  force 
than  the  objection  that  he  could  not  be  a  husband  or  a  writer,  both  involving 
an  egregious  misconception  or  an  utter  disregard  of  the  figurative  nature  of 
the  passage.  If  Jehovah's  casting  off  his  people  might  be  likened  to  a 
Jewish  husband's  repudiation  of  his  wife,  then  the  same  thing  might  be 
likened  to  a  Jewish  debtor's  sale  of  himself  or  his  children  to  his  creditors, 
without  any  greater  incongruity  or  contradiction  in  the  one  case  than  the 
other.     The  general   idea  of  rejection  is  twice  clothed  in  a  figurative  dress, 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L.  201 

first  by  emblems  borrowed  from  the  law  and  custom  of  divorce,  and  then  by 
emblems  borrowed  from  the  law  and  custom  of  imprisonment  for  debt. — 
The  restriction  of  this  passage  to  the  Babylonish  exile  is  entirely  arbitrar)^ 
If  it  admits  of  any  special  application,  it  is  rather  to  the  repudiation  of  the 
Jewish  people  at  the  advent. 

V.  2.  Why  did  I  come,  and  there  was  no  man  1  (why)  did  I  call,  and 
there  tvas  no  one  answering  7  The  idiom  of  occidental  languages  would 
here  admit,  if  not  require,  a  more  involved  and  hypothetical  construction. 
'  Why,  when  I  came,  was  there  no  one  (to  receive  me),  and,  when  I  called, 
no  one  to  answer  me  ?'  (See  above,  ch.  5 :  4,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies, 
p.  66.)  The  Targum  explains  this  of  God's  coming  and  calling  by  the 
Piopliets,  and  the  modern  Germans  adopt  the  same  interpretation.  Vitringa 
and  many  other  writers  undeistand  it  of  Christ's  coming  in  the  flesh.  Both 
explanations  are  erroneous  if  exclusive,  both  correct  as  specific  applications 
of  a  general  expression.  In  themselves,  the  words  imply  nothing  more  than 
that  God  had  come  near  to  the  people,  by  his  word  and  providence,  but 
without  any  suitable  response  on  their  part.  The  clause  is  explanatory  of 
their  being  sold  and  |7»Y  aivay,  as  represented  in  the  foregoing  verse.  The 
general  truth  which  it  teaches  is,  that  God  has  never  and  will  never  put 
away  his  people  even  for  a  time  without  preceding  disobedience  and  aliena- 
tion upon  their  part.  Particular  examples  of  this  general  truth  are  furnished 
by  tlie  Babylonish  exile  and  by  every  season  of  distress  and  persecution. — 
The  other  clause  precludes  the  vindication  of  their  unbelief  and  disobedience 
on  the  ground  that  they  had  not  sufficient  reason  to  obey  his  commands  and 
rely  upon  his  promises.  Such  doubts  are  rendered  impious  and  foolish  by 
the  proofs  of  his  almighty  power.  This  power  is  first  asserted  indirectly  by 
a  question  implying  the  strongest  negation  :  Is  my  hand  shortened,  shortened, 
from  redemption  ?  and  is  there  with  me  no  power  (i.  e.  have  I  no  power) 
to  deliver  1  Shortness  of  hand  or  arm  is  a  common  oriental  figure  for 
defect  of  power,  especially  in  reference  to  some  particular  effect,  which 
is  thus  represented  as  beyond  the  reach.  (See  ch.  59:  1.  Num.  1  1  :  23. 
cf.  ch,  37  :  17.)  According  to  Gesenius,  Artaxerxes  Longinianus  was  so 
called,  not  in  reference  to  any  corporeal  peculiarity,  but  as  being  possessed 
of  extraordinary  power.  The  emphatic  repetition  of  the  Hebrew  verb 
may,  as  usual,  be  variously  expressed  in  translation  by  the  introduction  of 
intensive  phrases,  such  as  altogether  or  at  all,  or  by  a  simple  repetition  of 
the  verb  in  English.  From,  redemption,  i.  e.  so  as  not  to  redeem  or  deliver 
from  distress.  (See  above,  on  ch.  49:  15.) — Behold,  by  my  rebuke  (a  term 
often  used  to  express  God's  control  over  the  elements)  I  will  dry  up  the  sea. 
I  can  make  a  complete  change  in  the  face  of  nature.  INIost  of  the  modern 
writers  use  the  present  form,  /  dry  up  the  sea.     But  this,  as  expressing  an 


202  CHAPTER    L. 

habitual  act,  fails  to  give  the  sense  of  the  original,  which  is  not  a  description 
of  what  he  usually  does,  but  a  declaration  of  what  he  can  do  and  what  he 
will  do  in  the  present  instance  if  it  should  be  necessary.     Hence  the  best 
translation  of  the  verb  is  the  exact  one  which  adheres  to  the  strict  sense  of 
the  future.      As  in  many  other  cases,  this  general  expression  may  involve  a 
particular  allusion,  namely,  to  the  crossing  of  the  Red  Sea  at  the  exodus 
from  Egypt.      But  to  make  this  the  direct  and  main  sense  of  the  words,  is 
equally  at  variance  with  good  taste  and  the  context.     It  is  only  upon  this 
erroneous  supposition  that  Vitringa  could  imagine  himself  bound  to  apply 
what  follows  (I  will  make  streams  a  ivilderness)  to  the  passage  of  the  Jordan, 
and  to  justify  the  plural  designation  of  that  river  by  appealing  to  its  magni- 
tude, historical  importance,  etc.     It  is  really  a  poetical  reiteration  of  what 
goes  before,  extending  what  was  there  said  of  the  sea  to  streams  and  other 
waters.     Tl)e  remaining  words  of  this  verse  are  intended  merely  to  complete 
the  picture,  by  subjoining  to   the  cause  its  natural  effect. — Let   their  ftsh 
stink  for  want  of  water  and  die  of  thirst.     The  abbreviated  form  nan  seems 
to  show  that  the  writer  here  passes  from  the  tone  of  prediction  or  general 
description  to  that  of  actual  command.     It  may  however  be  a  poetic  varia- 
tion of  the  ordinary  future  form,  in  which  case  the  sense  will  be,  their  fish 
snail  die  etc.  ;  or  the  abbreviated   form  may  indicate  an  indirect  or  oblique 
construction,  so  that  their  fish  shall  stink  etc.,  which  last  explanation  is  the 
one  preferred   by  the  latest  writers.     The  pronoun   their  refers  to  sea  and 
rivers,  or  to  the  last  alone,  which  is  masculine,  though  feminine  in  form. — 
For  cxan  Lowth  reads  ^z'^n  (their  fish  is  dried  up),  on  the  authority  of  one 
manuscript  confirmed  by  the  Septuagint  version  (hiQavOi^aovica).     The  col- 
lective use  of  the  word  fish  is  the  same  in   Hebrew  and  in  English.     For 
the   true  sense  of  'rJ<^ ,  see  above,  ch.  5  :  9,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies, 
p.  70. 

V.  3.  The  description  of  Jehovah's  ])ower,  as  displayed  in  his  control 
of  the  elements,  is  still  continued.  /  will  clothe  the  heavens  in  blackness. 
The  Hebrew  noun,  according  to  its  etymology,  denotes  not  merely  a  black 
colour,  but  such  a  colour  used  as  a  sign  of  mourning.  Thus  understood,  it 
corresponds  exactly  to  the  following  words,  where  the  customary  mourning 
dress  of  ancient  times  is  mentioned.  And  sackcloth  I  loill  place  (or  make) 
their  covering.  The  reference  of  this  verse  to  the  plague  of  darkness  in 
the  land  of  Egypt  is  admissible  only  in  the  sense  explained  above  with 
respect  to  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea,  namely,  as  a  particular  allusion 
comprehended  in  a  general  description.  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  some  later 
writers  understand  it  as  referring  to  the  usual  phenomena  of  storms,  or  even 
to  the  obscuration  of  the  sky  by  clouds  ;  but  it  is  inconceivable  that  such 
an  every-day  occurrence  should  be  coupled  with  the  drying  up  of  seas  and 


CHAPTER    L.  203 

rivers,  as  a  proof  of  God's  power  over  nature  and  the  elements.  The  sense 
required  by  the  connexion  is  that  of  an  extraordinary  darkness  (such  as  that 
of  an  eclipse),  or  even  an  extinction  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  as  in  ch.  13  :  10. 
(See  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  253.) 

V.  4.  The  Lord  Jehovah  hath  given  to  me.  As  Jehovah  is  the  speaker 
in  the  foregoing  verse,  Cocceius,  Viiringa,  and  many  others,  regard  this 
clause  as  a  proof  that  these  are  the  words  of  the  jNIessiah,  who,  in  virtue  of 
his  twofold  nature,  might  speak  in  the  person  of  Jehovah,  and  yet  say, 
Jehovah  hath  given  to  me.  The  rabbins  and  the  Germans  explain  them  as 
the  \vords  of  Isaiah  himself,  speaking  either  in  his  own  name  or  in  that  of 
the  prophets  as  a  class.  But  some  of  the  things  which  follow  are  inappli- 
cable to  such  a  subject,  an  objection  not  relieved  by  assuming  with  Grotius 
that  Isaiah  is  here  a  type  of  Christ.  The  true  hypothesis  is  still  the  same 
which  we  have  found  ourselves  constrained  to  assume  in  all  like  cases 
throughout  the  foregoing  chapters,  namely,  that  the  servant  of  Jehovah,  as 
he  calls  himself  in  v.  10  below,  is  the  Messiah  and  his  People,  as  a  complex 
person,  or  the  Church  in  indissoluble  union  with  its  Head,  asserting  his 
divine  commission  and  authority  to  act  as  the  great  teacher  and  enlightener 
of  the  world.  For  this  end  God  had  given  him  a  ready  tongue  or  speech. 
JMost  interpreters  adopt  a  different  version  of  ci";!!":?  in  the  first  and  last 
clause,  giving  it  at  first  the  sense  o(  learned,  and  afterwards  that  of  learners. 
These  two  ideas,  it  is  true,  are  near  akin,  and  may  be  blended  in  the 
Hebrew  word  as  they  are  in  the  English  scholar,  which  is  used  both  for  a 
learner  and  a  learned  person.  It  is  best,  however,  for  that  very  reason,  to 
retain  the  same  word  in  translation,  as  is  done  by  Hitzig,  who  translates  it 
discijjles,  Ewald  apostles,  and  Henderson  those  who  are  taught.  Grotius 
agrees  with  the  Septuagint  in  making  c^n^rs?  an  abstract  noun  meaning 
instructive — yXaocfar  nai(it(u^,  an  instructive  tongue.  Gesenius  considers  it 
equivalent  to  taught  ox  practised  tongue.  In  every  other  case  the  word  is 
a  concrete,  meaning  persons  taught,  disciples.  (See  above,  ch.  8:  16,  and 
below,  ch.  54  :  13.)  From  this  expression  Hitzig  and  Knobel  strangely 
infer  that  Isaiah  was  an  uneducated  prophet  like  Amos  (7:14),  which 
would  be  a  very  forced  conclusion,  even  if  Isaiah  were  the  subject  of  the 
passage.  As  applied  to  Christ,  it  is  descriptive  of  that  power  of  conviction 
and  persuasion  which  is  fi'equently  ascribed  in  the  New  Testament  to  his 
oral  teachings.  As  his  representative  and  instrument,  the  Church  has 
always  had  a  measure  of  the  same  gift  enabling  her  to  execute  her  high 
vocation. — To  know  (that  I  might  know)  to  help  or  succour  the  weary 
(with)  a  word.  This  explanation  of  the  verb  W? ,  which  occurs  only  here,  is 
that  given  by  Aquila  {I'TtocTi^niaui),  Jerome  (sustentare),  Gesenius  (stiirken). 


204  CHAPTERL. 

and  several  of  the  later  writers.  Near  akin  to  this,  and  founded  on  another 
Arabic  analogy,  is  the  sense  of  refreshing,  which  is  expressed  by  Ruckert, 
Ewald,  and  Umbreit.  J,  D.  IMichaelis  explains  it  to  mean  change,  and 
applies  it  to  the  endless  variety  of  our  Saviour's  instructions.  Paulus  and 
Hiizig  make  the  ^  radical,  and  identify  the  word  with  the  Arabic  LiJ  to 
speak  ;  but  this,  according  to  Knobel,  would  be  applicable  only  to  frivo- 
lous, unmeaning  speech.  Most  of  the  older  writers  understand  r^^v  as  a 
denominative  verb  from  r»  dine,  meaning  to  speak  seasonably.  This 
explanation  seems  to  be  implied  in  the  Septuagint  paraphrase  (lov  yravai 
iji/.a  dn  tintir  ).6yor).  But  according  to  the  probable  etymology  of  rv ,  the 
verb  derived  from  it  would  assume  another  form,  and  the  construction  with 
two  objects,  as  Gesenius  observes,  would  be  harsh  ;  whereas  it  is  not 
uncommon  with  verbs  of  supporting  or  sustaining.  (See  Gen.  47:13. 
1  Kings  18:4.)  The  Chaldee  paraphrase,  'that  I  might  know  how  to 
leach  wisdom  to  the  righteous  panting  for  the  words  of  the  law,'  or,  as  Jarchi 
and  Kimchi  have  it,  '  thirsting  for  the  words  of  God,'  appears  to  be  conjec- 
tural.— He  toil/ waken,  in  the  morning,  in  the  tnorning,  he  will  waken  for 
me  the  ear,  i.  e.  he  will  waken  my  ear,  rouse  my  attention,  and  open  my 
mind  to  the  reception  of  the  truth.  (See  ch.  48 :  8.  1  Sam.  9:  15.  20:  2. 
Ps.  41:7.)  The  present  tense  (he  wakeneth)  asserts  a  claim  to  constant 
inspiration  ;  the  future  expresses  a  confident  belief  that  God  will  assist  and 
inspire  him. — The  accents  require  in  the  morning  in  the  morning  to  be  read 
together,  as  in  ch.  28:  19,  where  it  is  an  intensive  repetition  meaning  every 
mornin<r.  It  mioht  otherwise  be  thouirht  more  natural  to  read  the  sentence 
thus,  he  will  waken  in  the  morning,  in  the  morning  he  will  loaken,  a  twofold 
expression  of  the  same  idea,  viz.  that  he  will  do  so  early.  In  either  case 
the  object  of  both  verbs  is  the  same  ;  the  introduction  of  the  pronoun  me 
after  the  first  in  the  English  Version  being  needless  and  hurtful  to  the 
sentence. — The  last  words  of  the  verse  declare  the  end  or  purpose  of  this 
wakening,  to  hear  (i.  e.  that  I  may  hear)  like  the  disciples  or  the  taught, 
i.  e.  that  I  may  give  attention  as  a  learner  listens  to  his  teacher.  Luzzatto 
understands  this  verse  as  an  assertion  of  the  pious  and  believing  Jews,  that 
God  enables  them  to  hear  and  speak  as  if  they  were  all  prophets,  which,  if 
correctly  understood  and  duly  limited,  appears  to  be  the  true  sense  as 
explained  above. 

V.  5.  The  Lord  Jehovah  opened  for  me  the  ear,  and  I  resisted  not. 
The  common  version,  1  was  not  rebellions,  seems  to  convert  the  description 
of  an  act  into  that  of  a  habit. — I  did  not  draw  hack,  or  refuse  the  office,  on 
account  of  the  hardships  by  which  I  foresaw  that  it  would  be  accompanied. 
There  may  be  an  allusion  to  the  conduct  of  Moses  (4  :  13)  in  declining  the 


CHAPTER    L.  205 

dangerous  but  honourable  work  to  which  the  Lord  had  called  him.  (Com- 
pare Jer.  1:6.  17  :  16.)  Henderson's  reflection  on  this  sentence  is,  "  How 
different  the  conduct  of  the  INIessiah  from  that  of  Jonah  !" 

V.  6.  31y  hack  I  gave  to  (those)  smiting.  We  may  understand  by 
gave  either  yielded  unresistingly  or  offered  voluntarily.  (Compare  Matth. 
5  :  39.)  The  punishment  of  scourging  was  a  common  one,  and  is  particu- 
larly mentioned  in  the  history  of  our  Lord's  maltreatment. — And  my  cheeks 
to  (those)  2^^ 'Peking  (the  beard  or  hair).  It  is  well  observed  by  Hitzig  that 
the  context  here  requires  something  more  than  the  jjlayful  or  even  the  con- 
temptuous pulling  of  the  beard,  the  vellere  bai-bam  of  Horace  and  Persius, 
to  which  preceding  writers  had  referred.  A  better  parallel  is  Neh.  13  :  25, 
where  the  Tirshatha  is  said  lo  have  contended  with  the  Jews,  and  cursed 
them,  and  smote  them,  and  plucked  off'  their  hair.  (Com.pare  Ezra  9  :  3.) 
This  particular  species  of  abuse  is  not  recorded  in  the  history  of  our  Saviour's 
sufferings,  but  some  suppose  it  to  be  comprehended  in  the  general  term  hif- 
feting. — My  face  I  did  not  hide  from  shame  and  spitting.  The  plural 
form  ri-s^s  may  be  either  an  intensive  or  einphaiic  expression  for  extreme 
shame  or  abundant  shame,  or  a  term  comprehending  various  shameful  acts, 
such  as  smiting  on  the  face,  spitting  in  it,  and  the  like.  In  the  phrase 
/  did  not  hide  my  face  there  may  be  an  allusion  to  the  common  fit^ure  of 
confusion  covering  the  face  (Jer.  51  :  51),  in  reference  no  doubt  to  the 
natural  expression  of  this  feeling  by  a  blush,  or  in  extreme  cases  by  a  livid 
paleness  overspreading  the  features.  Some  have  imagined  that  by  spitting 
nothing  more  is  meant  than  spitting  on  the  ground  in  one's  presence,  \\hich, 
according  to  the  oriental  usages  and  feelings,  is  a  strong  expression  of  abhor- 
rence and  contempt.  But,  as  Lowth  well  says,  if  spitting  in  a  person's 
presence  was  such  an  indignity,  how  much  more  spitting  in  his  face;  and 
the  whole  connexion  shows  that  the  reference  is  not  to  any  mitigated  form 
of  insult  but  to  its  extreme.  That  this  part  of  the  description  was  fulfilled 
in  the  experience  of  our  Saviour,  is  expressly  recorded,  Matth.  26  :  67. 
27  :  30.  That  it  was  literally  verified  in  that  of  Isaiah,  is  not  only  without 
proof  but  in  the  last  degree  improbable,  much  more  the  supposition  that  it 
was  a  common  or  habitual  treatment  of  the  prophets  as  a  class.  As  to 
Isaiah  himself,  it  is  worthy  of  remark  that  a  learned  and  ingenious  rabbin  of 
our  own  day  (Samuel  Luzzatto)  argues  against  this  application  of  the  pro- 
phet's language,  first,  because  he  was  not  a  prophet  of  evil,  and  could  not 
therefore  be  an  object  of  the  popular  hatred  ;  secondly,  because  his  predic- 
tions were  not  addressed  to  his  contemporaries  but  to  future  ages  ;  thirdly, 
because  even  on  the  supposition  that  he  lived  at  the  time  of  the  Babylonish 
exile,  he  must  have  written  in  the  name  and  person  of  an  older  prophet,  and 
could  not  therefore  have  exposed  himself  to  any  public  insult.     From  lhi> 


206  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L . 

impossibility  of  proving  any  literal  coincidence  between  the  prophetic 
description  and  the  personal  experience  of  the  prophet  himself,  when 
taken  in  connexion  with  the  palpable  coincidences  which  have  been  already 
pointed  out  in  the  experience  of  Jesus  Christ,  many  interpreters  infer  that 
it  was  meant  to  he  a  literal  prediction  of  his  sufferings.  But  even  Vitringa 
has  observed  that  if  it  were  so,  its  fulfilment,  or  the  record  of  it,  would  be 
imperfect,  since  the  points  of  agreement  are  not  fully  commensurate  with 
those  of  the  description.  (See  for  example  what  has  been  already  said  with 
respect  to  the  plucking  of  the  beard  or  hair.)  The  most  satisflictory  solu- 
tion of  the  difficulty  is  the  one  suggested  by  Vitringa  himself,  who  regards 
the  prophecy  as  metaphorical,  and  as  denoting  cruel  and  contemptuous 
treatment  in  general,  and  supposes  the  literal  coincidences,  as  in  many  other 
cases,  to  have  been  providentially  secured,  not  merely  to  convict  the  Jews 
as  Grotius  says,  but  also  to  identify  to  others  the  great  subject  of  the  pro- 
phecy. But  if  the  prophecy  itself  be  metaphorical,  it  may  apply  to  other 
subjects,  less  completely  and  remarkably  but  no  less  really,  not  to  Isaiah,  it 
is  true,  from  whom  its  terms,  even  figuratively  understood,  are  foreign,  but 
to  the  church  or  people  of  God,  the  body  of  Christ,  which  like  its  head  has 
ever  been  an  object  of  contempt  with  those  who  did  not  understand  its 
character  or  recognise  its  claims.  What  is  literally  true  of  the  Head  is 
metaphorically  true  of  the  Body.  'I  gave  my  back  to  the  smiters  and  my 
cheeks  to  the  pluckers,  my  fiice  I  did  not  hide  from  shame  and  spitting.' 

V.  7.  And  the  Lord  Jehovah  will  help  me,  or  afford  help  to  me.  The 
adversative  paiticle,  which  most  translators  have  found  necessary  here  to 
show  the  true  connexion,  is  not  required  by  the  Hebrew  idiom.  (See 
above,  on  ch.  40:  8.) — Therefore  I  am  not  confounded  by  the  persecution 
and  contempt  described  in  the  foregoing  verses.  The  common  version,  / 
shall  not  be  confounded,  is  not  only  arbitrary  but  injurious  to  the  sense, 
which  is  not  that  God's  protection  will  save  him  from  future  shame,  but 
that  the  hope  of  it  saves  him  even  now.  The  words  strictly  mean  I  have 
not  been  confounded,  which  implies  of  course  that  he  is  not  so  now. — 
Therefore  I  have  set  my  face  as  a  flint.  This  is  a  common  description  of 
firmness  and  determination,  as  expressed  in  the  countenance.  It  is  equally 
applicable  to  a  wicked  impudence  (Jer.  5:3.  Zech.  7:12)  and  a  holy 
resolution  (Ezek.  3:8,  9).  The  same  thing  is  expressed  by  Jeremiah 
under  different  but  kindred  figures.  (Jer.  1  :  17,  18.  15:20.)  It  is  pro- 
bable, as  J.  H.  Michaelis  suggests,  that  Luke  alludes  to  these  passages,  when 
he  says  that  our  Lord  stedfasthj  set  his  face  (rh  nQoamnov  avtov  iarTJQi^e)  to 
go  to  Jerusalem.  (Luke  9:51.)  The  strong  and  expressive  English 
phrase  set  my  face  is  in  all  respects  better  than  those  which  later  versions 
have  substituted  for  it,  such  displace  (Barnes) ,  present  (Noyes),  etc. — And 


CHAPTERL.  207 

Iknoiv  that  I  shall  not  be  ashamed.     The  substitution  o{  because  for  and  is 
an  unnecessary  deviation  from  the  Hebrew  idiom. 

V.  8.  Near  (is)   my  justijier   (or  the  one  justifying   me).      P^'^5?n  is 
strictly  a  forensic  term  meaning  to  acquit  or  pronounce  innocent,  in  case  of 
accusation,  and  to  right  or  do  justice  to,  in  case  of  civil  controversy.     The 
use  of  this  word  and   of  several   correlative  expressions,  may  be   clearly 
learned   from  Deut.  25  :  1.     The  justifier  is  of  course  Jehovah.     His  being 
near  is  not  intended  to  denote  the  proximity  of  an  event  still  future,  but  to 
describe  his  intervention  as  constantly  within  reach  and  available.     It  is  not 
the  justification  which  is  said  to  be  near  to  the  time  of  speakino^,  but  the 
justifier  who  is  said  to  be  near  the  speaker  himself.     The  justification  of  his 
servant  is  the  full  vindication  of  his  claims  to  divine  authority  and  inspi- 
ration.     At  the  same   time   there  is   a  designed  coincidence  between   the 
terms  of  the  prediction  and  the  issue  of  our  Saviour's  trial  ;  but  the  pro- 
phecy is  not  to  be  restricted  to  this  object.     The  general  meaning  of  the 
words  is,  all  this  reproach  is  undeserved,  as  will  be  seen  hereafter.     Since 
God  himself  has  undertaken  his  defence,  the  accuser's  case  is  hopeless.     He 
therefore  asks   triumphantly,  Who  ivill  contend  with  me  ?     The    Hebrew 
verb  denotes  specifically  litigation,  or  forensic  strife.     Rom.  8:  33,  34,  is 
an  obvious  imitation  of  this  passage  as  to  form.     But   even  Vitrincra,  and 
the  warmest  advocates  for  letting  the  New  Testament  explain  the  Old,  are 
forced  to  acknowledge  that  in  this  case  Paul  merely  borrows  his  expressions 
from  the  Prophet,  and  applies  them  to  a  different  object.     In  any  other  case 
this  class  of  writers  would  no  doubt  have  insisted  that  the  justifier  must  be 
Christ  and   the  justified  his   people  ;   but  from  this  they  are  precluded  by 
their  own  assumption,  that   the  Messiah  is  the  speaker.     Both  hypotheses, 
so  far  as  they  have  any  just  foundation,  may  be  reconciled  by  the  supposi- 
tion  that  the   ideal  speaker  is  the  Body  and   the   Head  in  union.     In  the 
sense  here  intended,  Christ  is  justified  by  the  Father,  and  at  the  same  time 
justifies  his   people. —  We  will  stand  (or  let  us  stand)  together,  at  the  bar, 
before  the  judgment-seat,  a  frequent  application  of  the  Hebrew  verb.      (See 
Num.  27  :  2.  Deut.  19  :  17.   I  Kings  3  :  16.)     This  is  an  indirect  defiance 
or  ironical  challenge  ;  as  if  he  had  said.  If  any  will   still  venture  to  accuse 
me,  let  us  stand  up  together. — The  same  thing  is  then  expressed  in  other 
words,  the  form  of  interrogation  and  proposal  being  still  retained.      Who  is 
my  adversary  1     This  is  more  literally  rendered  in  the  margin  of  the  Eno-lish 
Bible,  7/7(0  is  the  master  of  my  cause  ?     But  even   this  liiils  to  convey  the 
precise  sense  of  the  original,  and   may  be  even  said  to  reverse  it,  for  the 
master  of  my  cause  seems  to  imply  ascendency  or  better  right,  and  is  not 
therefore  applicable  to  a  vanquished  adversary  whose  case  was  just  before 
described  as  hopeless.     The  truth  is  that  the   pronoun  7ny  belongs  not  to 


'203  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L . 

the  last  word  meroiy  but  to  the  whole  complex  phrase,  and  ^?3  simply 
means  '  possessor,'  i.  e.  one  to  whom  a  given  thing  belongs.  Thus  a  cause- 
7nostcr  (elsewhere  called  c"^"'^  '??  ,  Exod.  24  :  14)  means  one  who  has  a 
cause  or  lawsuit,  a  party  litigant,  and  tny  cause-master  means  one  who  has 
a  controversy  with  me,  my  opponent  or  adversary  ;  so  that  the  common  ver- 
sion really  conveys  the  meaning  better  than  what  seems  to  be  the  more 
exact  translation  of  the  margin.  In  sense,  the  question  is  precisely  parallel 
and  tantamount  to  the  one  before  it,  ivho  will  contend  with  me? — Let  him 
draw  near  to  me,  confront  me,  or  engage  in  conflict  with  me. — The  forensic 
flo-ures  of  this  verse  and  some  of  its  expressions,  have  repeatedly  occurred  in 
the  course  of  the  preceding  chapters.  (See  ch.  41  :  1,  21.  43  :  9,  26. 
45:20.  48  :  14,  16.) 

V.  9.  Behold,  the  Lord  Jehovah  ivill  help  me  ;  ivho  (is)  he  (that)  will 
condemn  me  1  The  help  specifically  meant  is  that  aflbrded  by  an  advocate 
or  judge  to  an  injured  party.  T''^.y]  is  the  technical  antithesis  to  p'^'^i^H  used 
in  V.  8.  Both  verbs  with  their  cognate  adjectives  occur  in  Deut.  25:  1. — 
The  potential  meaning  (can  condemn)  is  included  in  the  future  (will  con- 
demn), though  not  directly  much  less  exclusively  expressed  by  it. — The 
last  clause  adds  to  the  assurance  of  his  own  safety  that  of  the  destruction  of 
his  enemies.  All  they  (or  all  of  them,  his  adversaries,  not  expressly  men- 
tioned but  referred  to  in  the  questions  which  precede)  like  the  garment  shall 
^row  old  (or  be  ivorn  out),  i.  e.  like  the  garment  which  is  worn  out  or 
decays. — The  moth  shall  devour  them.  Gesenius  condemns  the  relative 
construction  which  the  moth  devours  (referring  to  iJan  as  a  collective), 
because  inadmissible  in  the  parallel  passage,  ch.  51  :  8.  He  nevertheless 
adopts  it  in  his  own  German  version  (wie  ein  Gewand  das  die  Motle  ver- 
zehrt).  The  real  objection  to  it  is,  that  it  is  needless  and  rests  upon  a 
frivolous  rhetorical  punctilio.  By  a  perfectly  natural  and  common  transi- 
tion, the  writer  passes  from  comparison  to  metaphor,  and  having  first  trans- 
formed them  into  garments,  says  directly  that  the  moth  shall  devour  them, 
not  as  men,  in  which  light  he  no  longer  views  them,  but  as  old  clothes. 
This  is  a  favourite  comparison  in  Scripture  to  express  a  gradual  but  sure 
decay.  (Compare  ch.  51  :  8  and  Hos.  5  :  12.)  In  Job  13  :  28.  Ps.  39:  12, 
it  seems  to  denote  the  effect  of  pining  sickness.  Not  contented  with  this 
obvious  and  natural  interpretation  of  the  figure,  Vitringa  supposes  an  allusion 
to  the  official  dresses  of  their  chief  men,  which  is  not  a  whit  more  reasonable 
than  the  notion  of  Cocceius,  which  he  sets  aside  as  far-fetched,  that  the 
prophets,  priests,  and  rulers  of  the  old  economy  were  but  a  garment,  under 
which  the  Messiah  was  concealed  until  his  advent,  and  of  which  he  stripped 
himself  (dnexdvadfisvog,  Col.  2:15)  at  death.  The  necessity  of  thus 
explaining  why  the  enemies  of  Christ  and  his  people  are  compared  to  gar- 


CHAPTER    L.  209 

ments  is  precluded  by  the  obvious  consideration,  that  the  main  point  of  the 
simile  is  the  slow  consuming  process  of  the  moth,  and  that  the  clothes  are 
added  simply  as  the  substances  in  which  it  is  most  frequently  observed. 

V.  10.  JVho  among  you  is  a  fearer  of  Jehovah,  hcarlccning  to  the  voice 
of  his  servant,  loho  ivalketk  in  darkness  and  there  is  no  light  to  him  1  Let 
him  trust  in  the  name  of  Jthovah,  and  lean  ujjon  his  God.  The  same 
sense  may  be  attained  by  closing  the  interrogation  at  liis  servant,  and  read- 
ing the  remainder  of  the  sentence  thus  :  ivhoso  icaJlcciJi  in  darkness  and  hath 
no  light,  let  him  trust  etc.  This  construction,  which  is  given  by  De  Wette, 
has  the  advantage  of  adhering  more  closely  to  the  masoretic  interpunction. 
A  different  turn  is  given  to  the  sentence  by  J.  D.  Michaelis,  who  terminates 
the  question  at  Jthovah,  and  makes  all  the  rest  an  answer  to  it.  '  Who 
among  you  is  a  fearer  of  Jehovah  ?  He  that  hearkeneth  to  the  voice  of  his 
servant,  that  walketh  in  darkness  where  he  has  no  dawn,  yet  trusts  in  Jeho- 
vah and  relies  upon  liis  God.'  To  this  ingenious  and  original  construction 
it  may  be  objected,  first,  (hat  it  divides  the  sentence  into  two  very  unequal 
parts,  directly  contrary  to  Hebrew  usage  ;  and  in  the  next  place,  that  it 
makes  the  participle,  present,  and  future,  all  precisely  synonymous  and 
equally  descriptive  of  the  pious  man's  habitual  conduct.  All  the  construc- 
tions which  have  now  been  mentioned  give  the  ^"q  its  usual  and  proper 
sense,  as  an  interrogative  pronoun  corresponding  to  the  English  ivho  1  But 
Vitringa,  Rosenmiiller,  Gesenius,  and  Maurer,  choose  to  give  it  an  indefinite 

sense,  tvhoso  or  ivhoever,  and    exclude   the   interrogation  altoo-ether the 

same  superficial  lexicography  which  confounds  ikbr,  with  rt^n ,  because  the 
Hebrev/  employed  one  form  of  expression  where  we  should  more  naturally 
use  the  other.     Because  whoever  might  be  used,  and  would  be  used  more 
readily  by  us  in  such  a  case  than  who,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  former  is 
the  true  sense  of  the  Hebrew  word  in  that  case.     All  the  instances  alleged 
by  Gesenius  in  his  Lexicon  as  proofs  that  "o  is  sometimes  an  indefinite, 
admit,  with  one  exception,  of  the  usual  interrogative  translation,  not  only 
without  damage  to  the  sense,  but  with  a  more  exact  adherence  to  the  genius 
of  the  language,  which  delights  in  short  detached  propositions,  where  an  occi- 
dental writer  would  prefer  a  series  of  dependent  members  formino-  one  com- 
plex period.     Thus  in  Judg,  7  :  3  the  occidental  idiom  would  be,  Whosoever 
is  fearful  and  afraid  let  him  return ;  but  tlie  genuine  Hebrew  form  is. 
Who  is  fearful  and  afraid  1  let  him  return.     The  same  thino-  is  true  of 
Exod.  24  :  14.  Prov.  9 :  4.  Eccl.  5 :  9.  Is.  54  :  15,  in  all  which  cases  there 
is  nothing  whatever  to  forbid  the  application  of  the  general  rule,  that  the 
usual  and  proper  sense  must  be  retained  unless  there  be  some  reason  for 
departing  from  it ;  and  such  a  reason  cannot  be  afforded  by  the  bare  possi- 
bility of  a  different  construction.     The  single  exception  above  mentioned. 

14 


210  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L. 

and  the  only  case  of  the  indefinite  use  of  "^'^  alleged  by  Ewald  in  his  Gram- 
mar, is  2  Sam.  18:  12,  which  is  too  anomalous  and  doubtful  to  prove  any 
thing,  and  w  liich  may  be  as  properly  alleged  on  one  side  as  the  other. 
The  occasional  combination  of  "^  with  "ittJx  ,  instead  of  favouring  the  views 
here  combated,  affords  an  argument  against  them,  as  the  obvious  meaning 
of  the  words,  both  in  Exod.  32 :  33  and  2  Sam.  20  :  1 1 ,  is,  ivlio  (is  he)  that  1 
All  that  need  be  added  upon  this  point  is,  that  the  latest  German  writers 
have  returned  to  the  old  and  true  translation,  whol — Obedience  to  the 
word  is  implied  in  hearing  it,  but  not  expi'cssed.  Lowth,  on  the  authority 
of  two  ancient  versions,  reads  J'^'ii-;  for  "SjZp  ,  let  him  hearken,  which  is 
copied  by  Gesenius,  perhaps  through  inadvertence,  as  he  says  nothing  of  a 
change  of  text,  and  no  such  sense  can  possibly  be  put  upon  the  participle. 
This  mistake  or  oversight,  if  such  it  be,  although  corrected  by  the  later 
Germans,  has  been  carefully  retained  by  Noyes  (Jet  him  hearken  to  the 
voice  of  his  servant).  Henderson,  on  the  other  hand,  retains  the  common 
interrogative  translation,  but  explains  the  '^^2  ,  in  his  note,  as  "a  substitute 
for  the  relative  "iv^Js; ,  he  ivho"  which  is  scarcely  intelligible. — Darkness  is 
here  used  as  a  natural  and  common  figure  for  distress.  (See  above,  ch. 
8:20.  9:  I.)  J.  D.  Michaelis  gives  to  ri:.':  the  specific  sense  of  dawn, 
break  of  day,  or  morning  light,  hke  "inaJ  in  ch,  8  :  20  and  47  :  11.  Vitringa 
understands  it  to  mean  splendor  or  a  great  degree  of  light,  and  thus  avoids 
the  absolute  negation  of  all  spiritual  light,  which  would  not  suit  his  exege- 
tical  hypothesis.  The  great  majority  of  writers,  late  and  early,  are  agreed 
in  making  it  a  poetical  equivalent  or  synonyme  of  "lix. — The  futures  in  the 
last  clause  may,  with  equal  propriety,  if  not  still  greater,  be  translated,  he 
will  trust  and  lean  ;  the  exhortation  being  then  implied  but  not  expressed. 

The  preterite  "^n  may  be  intended  to  suggest  that  the  darkness  spoken 

of  is   not  a  transient  state,  but   one  which   has   already   long  continued. 
Trusting  in  the  name  of  Jehovah  is  not  simply  trusting  in  himself,  or  in  the 
independent  self-existence  which  that  name  implies,  but  in  his  manifested 
attributes,  attested  by  experience,  which  seems  to  be  the  full  sense  of  the 
word  name,  as  applied  to  God  in  the  Old  Testament. — Two  exegetical 
questions,  in  relation  to  this  verse,  have  much  divided  and   perplexed  inter- 
preters.    The  first  has  respect  to  the  person  speaking  and  the  objects  of 
address  ;  the  other  to  the  servant  of  Jehovah.     These  questions,  from  their 
close  connexion  and  their  mutual   dependence,  may  be  most  conveniently 
discussed  together.     There  would  be  no  absurdity,  nor  even  inconsistency, 
in  supposing  that  his  servant  means  the  prophet  or  the  prophets  indefinitely, 
as  the  organs  of  the  divine  communications.     This  may  be  granted  even  by 
those  who  give  the  title  a  very  different  meaning  elsewhere,  as  it  cannot 
reasonably  be  supposed  that  so  indefinite  a  name,  and  one  of  such  perpetual 
occurrence,  is  invariably  used  in  its  most  pregnant  and  emphatic  sense.     It 


C  H  A  PT  ER    L.  211 

is  certain,  on  the  contrary,  that  it  is  frequently  applied  to  the  prophets  and 
to  other  public  functionaries  of  the  old  economy.  There  is  therefore  no 
absurdity  in  Calvin's  explanation  of  the  phrase  as  here  descriptive  of  God's 
ministers  or  messengers  in  general,  to  whom  those  who  fear  him  are  required 
to  submit.  The  verse  may  then  be  connected  immediately  with  what 
precedes,  as  the  words  of  the  same  speaker.  But  while  all  this  is  unques- 
tionably true,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  frequency  and  prominence  with 
which  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  is  exhibited  in  these  Later  Prophecies,  as 
one  distinguished  from  the  ordinary  ministry,  makes  it  more  natural  to  make 
that  application  of  the  words  in  this  case,  if  it  be  admissible.  The  only 
difficulty  lies  in  the  mention  of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  in  the  third  person, 
while  the  preceding  context  is  to  be  considered  as  his  own  words.  (See 
above,  on  ch.  49  :  1.)  This  objection  may  be  easily  removed,  if  we  assume, 
as  Ewald  does,  that  the  words  of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  are  concluded  in 
the  preceding  verse,  and  that  in  the  one  before  us  the  Prophet  goes  on  to 
speak  in  his  own  person.  This  assumption,  although  not  demonstrably 
correct,  agrees  well  with  the  dramatic  form  of  the  context,  both  before  and 
after,  and  the  frequent  changes  of  person,  without  any  explicit  intimation, 
which  even  the  most  rigorous  interpreters  are  under  the  necessity  of  grant- 
ing. On  this  hypothesis,  which  seems  to  be  approved  by  the  latest  as 
well  as  by  the  older  writers,  the  Servant  o(  Jehovah  here  referred  to  is  the 
same  ideal  person  who  appears  at  the  beginning  of  the  forty-ninth  and 
forty-second  chapters,  namely,  the  Messiah  and  his  People  as  his  type  and 
representative,  to  vv'hose  instructions  in  the  name  of  God  the  world  must 
hearken  if  it  would  be  saved.  The  question,  which  part  of  the  complex 
person  here  predominates,  must  be  determined  by  observing  what  is  said  of 
him.  If  the  exhortation  of  the  verse  were  naturally  applicable  to  the  world 
at  large,  as  distinguished  from  the  chosen  people,  then  the  latter  might  be 
readily  supposed  to  be  included  under  the  description  of  the  Servant  of 
Jehovah.  But  as  the  terms  employed  appear  to  be  descriptive  of  the  peo- 
ple of  Jehovah,  or  of  some  considerable  class  among  them,  the  most  proba- 
ble conclusion  seems  to  be,  that  by  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  we  are  here  to 
understand  the  Head  as  distinguished  from  the  Body,  with  a  secondary 
reference,  perhaps,  to  his  official  representatives,  so  far  as  he  employs  them 
in  communicating  even  with  the  Body  itself.  There  is  no  need  of  pointino- 
out  the  arbitrary  nature  of  Vitringa's  theory,  that  this  verse  relates  to  a 
period  extending  from  the  advent  to  the  reign  of  Trajan  or  Hadrian, — a 
chronological  hypothesis  in  which  the  terminus  a  quo  is  only  less  gratuitous 
and  groundless  than  the  terminus  ad  quern. 

V.  11.  Lo,  all  of  you  kindling  fire,  girding  sparks  (or  fiery  darts),  go 
in  the  light  of  your  fire,  and  in  the  sparks  ye  have  kindled.     From  my  hand 


212  CHAPTER    L. 

is  this  to  you;  in  pain  (or  at  the  jjJace  of  torment)  shall  ye  lie  down.     The 
construction  of  the  first  clause  is  ambiguous,  as  kindling  and  girding,  with 
their  adjuncts,  may  be  either  the  predicates  or  subjects  of  the  proposition. 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  Hitzig,  and  Hendewerk,  prefer  the  latter  supposition,  and 
explain  the  clause  to  mean,  all  of  you  are  kindling  fre  etc.     This  being 
inconsistent  with  the  character   described   in  the  preceding   verse,  Hitzig 
supposes  that  the  speaker  here  acknowledges  his  error,  or  admits  that  the 
fearers  of  Jehovah,  whose  existence  he  had  hypothetical!}'  stated,  were  in 
fact  not  to  be  found.      As  if  he  had  said,  'But  you  are  not  such,  all  of  you 
are  kindling,'  etc.     The  harshness  of  this  interpretation,  or  perhaps  other 
reasons,  have  induced  the  great  majority  of  writers  to  adopt  the  other  syn- 
tax, and  explain  the   participles   as  the  subject  of  the  proposition,  or  a 
description  of  the  object  of  address,  all  of  you  kindling,  i.  e.  all  of  you  who 
kindle.     Thus  understood,  the  clause  implies  that  the  speaker  is  here  turn- 
ing from  one  class  of  hearers  to  another,  from  the  gentiles  to  the  Jews,  or 
from  the  unbelieving  portion  of  the  latter  to  the  pious,  or  still   more  gene- 
rally from  the  corresponding  classes  of  mankind  at  large,  without  either 
national  or  local  limitation.     The  wider  sense  agrees  best  with  the  compre- 
hensive terms  of  the  passage,  whatever  specific  applications  may  be  virtually 
comprehended  in  it  or  legiiimavely  inferable  from  it.     This  is  of  course  too 
vague  an  hypothesis  to  satisfy  the  judgment  or  the  feelings  of  the  excellent 
Vitringa,  by  whom  it  is  repeatedly  affirmed  that  all  who  admit  the  applica- 
tion of  the  prophecy  to  Christ,  must  grant  that  this  verse  is  addressed  to 
the  Pharisaic  party  of  the  Jews, — a  consequence  the  logical  necessity  of 
which  is  very  far  from  being  evident. — There  is  also  a  difference  of  opinion 
with  respect  to  the  import  of  the  figures.     That  of  kindling  fre  is  explained 
by  Junius  and  Tremellius  as  denoting  the  invention  of  doctrines  not  revealed 
in  Scripture,  while  the  sparks  represent  the  Pharisaical  traditions.     The 
rabbinical  interpreters  suppose  the  fire  to  denote  the  wrath  of  God,  in  proof 
of  which  they  are  able  to  allege  not  only  the  general  usage  of  the  emblem 
in  that  sense,  but  the  specific  combination  of  this  very  noun  and  verb  in 
Deut.  32:22.  Jer.  15:  14.  17:4.     In  all  these  cases  the  meaning  of  the 
figure  is  determined  by  the  addition  of  the  words  in  my  anger,  or  as  some 
absurdly  choose  to  render  it,  in  my  nose.     (See  above,  on  ch.  48 :  9.) 
This  is  certainly  a  strong  analogical  argument  in   favour  of  the  rabbinical 
interpretation,  and  Vitringa's  method  of  evading  it  is  not  a  little  curious. 
He  rests  his  proof  on  the  omission  of  this  very  phrase  ("^Qx^),  in  default  of 
which,  he  says,  nemo  hie  necessario  cogitat  de  ira  Dei.     The  same  rule,  if 
applied  with  equal  rigour  to  his  own  interpretations,  would  exclude  a  very 
large  proportion  of  his  favourite  conclusions.     Even  in  this  case,  he  has  no 
diccuQirinov,  as  he  calls  it,  to  compel  the  adoption  of  his  own  idea,  that  the 
•fire  kindled  is  the  fire  of  sedition  and  intestine  strife,  still  less  to  prove  that 


CHAPTERL.  213 

the  particular  sedition  and  intestine  conflict  meant  is  that  which  raged  among 
the  Jews  before  the  final  downfal  of  Jerusalem.  Lowtli  seems  unwillinf  to 
reject  this  explanation,  though  his  better  taste  inclines  him  to  prefer  the 
wider  sense  of  human  devices  and  worldly  policy,  exclusive  of  faith  and 
trust  in  God.  This  is  substantially  the  explanation  of  the  words  now  com- 
monly adopted,  though  particular  interpi'eters  diverge  from  one  another  in 
details,  according  to  the  sense  which  they  attach  to  the  parallel  metaphor, 
^■'P"''!  "'t!^'?  •  The  rabbinical  tradition  gives  the  noun  the  sense  of  sparks, 
which  is  retained  in  many  versions.  But  others  follow  Albert  Schultens  in 
explaining  it  to  mean  small  bundles  of  combustibles,  employed  like  matches 
or  as  missiles  in  ancient  warfare.  This  is  generalized  by  Lowth  into  fuel, 
while  Gesenius  makes  it  signify  specifically  burning  arrows,  fiery  darts,  the 
^i'Xtj  Tienvgafisva  of  Eph.  G:  16.  J.  D.  Michaelis  adopts  the  kindred  sense 
of  torches.  No  less  doubtful  is  the  meaning  of  the  verb  in  this  connexion. 
Lowth  translates  the  whole  phrase,  ivho  heap  the  fuel  round  about,  and 
Vitringa,  qui  circumponilis  malleolos.  Gesenius  retains  the  usual  sense  of 
girding,  and  supposes  them  to  be  described  as  wearing  the  r.ipiT  at  the 
girdle.  Most  interpreters  incline  to  the  generic  sense  surroundins;,  as 
equally  compatible  with  several  different  interpretations  of  the  following 
noun.  Any  of  these  interpretations  is  better  than  the  desperate  device  of 
emendation,  which  is  here  resorted  to  by  Cappellus  and  Seeker,  the  last  of 
whom  suggests  ^T^"^.  ;  Hitzig  proposes  '^fi'^^?  which  seems  to  be  approved 
by  Ewald. — Common  to  all  the  explanations  is  the  radical  idea  of  a  fire 
kindled  by  themselves  to  their  own  eventual  destruction.  This  result  is 
predicted,  as  in  many  other  cases,  under  the  form  of  a  command  or  exhorta- 
tion to  persist  in  the  course  which  nmst  finally  destroy  them.  Go  (i.  e.  go 
on)  in  the  light  of  your  fire.  This  seems  to  favour  the  opinion  that  the 
fire  is  supposed  to  have  been  kindled  for  the  sake  of  its  light,  which  is 
implied  indeed  in  Lowth's  interpretation.  Hitzig,  however,  understands 
the  fire  to  be  kindled  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the  righteous,  instead  of 
which  result  those  who  kindle  it  are  called  upon  to  enter  into  it  and  be  con- 
sumed. For  this  is  their  appointed  doom, — From  my  hand  is  this  to  you, 
i.  e.  my  power  has  decreed  and  will  accomplish  what  is  now  about  to  be 
declared,  viz.  that  you  shall  lie  down  in  sorrow,  or  a  place  of  sorrow,  if 
with  Ewald  we  give  the  noun  the  local  sense  usual  in  words  of  this  forma- 
tion. The  expression  is  a  general  one,  denoting  final  ruin,  and  of  course 
includes,  although  it  may  not  specifically  signify,  a  future  state  of  misery. — 
It  may  here  be  mentioned,  as  a  specimen  of  misplaced  ingenuity,  that  J.  D. 
Michaelis  understands  the  scene  depicted  to  be  that  of  travellers  in  the 
dark  who  strike  a  liglit,  and  when  it  is  extinguished  find  it  darker  than 
before,  in  consequence  of  which  they  fall  among  the  rocks  and  hurt  them- 
selves severely,  which  is  meant  by  lying  down  in  pain.     It  is  characteristic 


214  CHAPTER    LI. 

of  tliis  writer  and  his  age,  that  ahhough  rather  supercihous  and  reserved  in 
allowing  the  aesthetic  merits  of  Isaiah,  he  describes  this  passage,  thus  dis- 
torted by  himself,  as  a  specimen  of  oriental  imagery  which  '  really  deserves 
to  be  introduced  even  into  our  poetry  ;'  while  many  of  the  Prophet's  loftiest 
fliffhts  elsewhere,  if  not  entirely  overlooked,  are  noticed  in  a  kind  of  apolo- 
getic tone,  as  if  the  critic  were  ashamed  of  his  subject.  The  spirit  of  such 
criticism  is  not  yet  extinct,  although  its  grosser  forms  are  superseded  by  a 
purer  taste,  even  in  Germany. 


CHAPTER    LI 


Interpreters  are  much  divided  with  respect  to  the  particular  period 
which  constitutes  the  subject  of  this  prophecy.  The  modern  Jews  regard 
it  as  a  promise  of  deliverance  from  their  present  exile  and  dispersion  by  the 
Messiah,  whom  they  still  expect.  The  Christian  Fathers  refer  it  to  the 
time  of  the  first  advent.  Modern  writers  are  divided  between  this  hypo- 
thesis and  that  which  confines  it  to  the  Babylonish  exile.  The  truth  appear? 
to  be,  that  this  chapter  is  a  direct  continuation  of  the  preceding  declarations 
with  respect  to  the  vocation  of  the  Church  and  the  divine  administration 
towards  her.  The  possibility  of  her  increase,  as  previously  promised,  is 
evinced  by  the  example  of  Abraham,  from  whom  all  Israel  descended,  vs. 
1-3.  In  like  manner  many  shall  be  added  from  the  gentiles,  vs.  4-6. 
Their  enemies  shall  not  only  fail  to  destroy  them,  but  shall  be  themselves 
destroyed,  vs.  7,  8.  This  is  confirmed  by  another  historical  example,  that 
of  Egypt,  vs.  9,  10.  The  same  assurances  are  then  repeated,  with  a  clearer 
promise  of  the  new  dispensation,  vs.  11-16.  The  chapter  closes  with  a 
direct  address  to  Zion,  who,  though  helpless  in  herself  and  destitute  of 
human  aid,  is  sure  of  God's  protection  and  of  the  destruction  of  her  enemies 
and  his,  vs.  17-23. 

V.  1.  Hearken  unto  me!  A  common  formula,  when  the  w^'iter  or 
speaker  turns  away  from  one  object  of  address  to  another.  It  is  here  used 
because  he  is  about  to  address  himself  to  the  faithful  servants  of  Jehovah; 
the  true  Israel,  who  are  described  as  seeking  offer  righteousness,  i.  e. 
making  it  the  end  of  all  their  efforts  to  be  righteous,  or  conformed  to  the 
will  of  God.  The  sense  of  justifying  righteousness  or  justification  is  as 
much  out  of  place   here  as  that  of  truth,  which  is  given  by  the  Targum  ; 


CH  AP  TER    LI.  215 

except  so  far  as  all  these  terms  are  employed,  in  Scripture  usage,  to  express 
the  general  idea  of  moral  goodness,  piety,  a  character  acceptable  in  God's 
sight.     The  original  application  of  the  phrase  here  used  is  by  IMoses  (Deut. 
16:  20)  ;  from  whom  it  is  copied  twice  by  Solomon  (Prov.  15:9.  21  :  21), 
and  twice  by  Paul  (L  Tim.  6  :  11.2  Tim.  2 :  22).     Tlie  same  apostle  uses, 
in  the  same  sense,  the  more  general  expression,  follow  after  good  (1  Thess. 
5:    15);  which   is  also  used  by  David   (Ps.  38:   21,  comp.  Ps.  34:  15). 
The  same   class  of  persons  is  then  described  as  seeking  (or  seekers  of) 
Jehovah,  i.  e.  seeking  his  presence,  praying  to  him,  worshipping  him,  con- 
sulting him.     The  first  description  is  more  abstract,  the  second  expresses  a 
personal  relation  to  Jehovah  ;  both  together  are  descriptive  of  the  righteous 
as  distinguished  from  the  wicked.     Now  as  these  have  ever  been  compara- 
tively few,  not  only  in  relation  to  the  heathen  world,  but  in  relation  to  the 
spurious  members  of  the  cliurch  itself,  a  promise  of  vast  increase  (like  that 
in  ch.  49:  18-21)   might  well-  appear  incredible.     In  order  to  remove  this 
doubt,  the  Prophet  here  appeals,  not,  as  in  many  other  cases,  to  the  mere 
omnipotence  of  God,   but  to  a  historical  example  of   precisely  the  same 
kind,  viz.  that  of  Abraham,  from  whom   the  race  of  Israel   had  already 
sprung,  in  strict  fulfilment  of  a  divine   promise. — Look  unto  the  rock  ye 
have  been  heivn.     The  earlier  grammarians  assume  an  ellipsis  of  the  rela- 
tive and  preposition,  the  rock  from  which  ye  have  been  hewn  ;    the  later, 
and  particularly  Evvald,  reject  this  as  an  occidental  idiom,  and  suppose  the 
Hebrew  phrase  to  be  complete,  but  give  the  same  sense  as  the  others.    The 
same  remark  apph'es  to  the  parallel  clause,  and  to  the  hole  of  the  pit  (from 
which)  ye  have  been  digged.     The  reference  of  these  figures  to  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  as  the  rock  of  ages  and  the  source  of  spiritual  life,  is  held  by 
some  of  the  Fathers,  one  of  whom  (Eusebius)  supposes  a  collateral  allusion 
to  the  rock  in  which  our  Saviour  was  entombed  ;    but  this  interpretation  is 
too  mystical  even  for  Vitringa,  who  admits  that  the  figures  of  this  verse  are 
explained  in  the  nest  by  the  Prophet  himself.     His  Dutch  taste  again  gets 
the  better  of  his  judgment  and  his  reverent  regard  for  the  word  of  God, 
and  allows  him  to  put  a  revolting  sense  upon  the  figures  here  employed,  in 
which  Knobel  follows  him  with  still  greater  coarseness.      The   truth,   as 
recognised  by  almost  all  interpreters,  is  that  the  rock  and   pit  (or  quarry) 
are  two  kiiuhed  metaphors  for  one  and  the  same  thing,  both  cxpressin"-  the 
general  idea  of  extraciion  or  descent  (compare  ch.  48:  2)  without  particu- 
lar reference  to  the  individual   parents,  although  both  are  mentioned  in  the 
next  verse,  for  the  sake  of  a  parallel  construction,  upon  which  it  is  almost 
puerile  to  found  such  a  conclusion  as  the  one  in  question.     In  the  same 
category    may   be   safely  placed    the   old    dispute,    whether    Abraham   is 
called  a  rock  because  he  was  strong  in  faith  (Rom.  4  :  20),  or  because  he 
was  as  good  as  dead  (Heb.  11  :  12)  when  he  received  the  promise.     He  is 


■216  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I. 

no  more  represented  as  a  rock  than  as  a  pit  or  quarry,  neither  of  which 
figures  is  apphed  to  him  distinctively,  but  both  together  signify  extraction 
or  oritrjn  in  a  genealoiiical  sense. 

o  o  o 

V.  2.  Lool:  unto  Abraham  your  father  and  unto  Sarah  (^that)  bare  you. 
That  Sarah  is  mentioned  chiefly  for  rhythmical  effect,  may  be  inferred  from 
the  writer's  now  confining  what  he  says  to  Abraham  alone. — Instead  of 
speaking  further  of  both  parents,  he  now  says.  For  I  have  called  him  one  ; 
which  does  not  mean,  I  have  declared  him  to  be  such  or  so  described  him, 
but,  I  have  called    (i.  c.  chosen,  designated)  him,  when  he  was  only  one, 
1.  e.  a  solitary  individual,  although  the  destined  father  of  a  great  nation  (Gen. 
12:  2.)     This  sense  of  the  word  one  is  clear  from  Ezek.  33:  24,  where, 
with  obvious  allusion  to  this  verse,  it  is  put  in  opposition  to  many  :    Abra- 
ham was  ONE,  and  he  inherited  the  land ;    and  we  are  many,   (much  more 
then)  is  the  land  given  to  us  for  an  inheritance.     The  same  antithesis  is 
far  more  obvious  and  appropriate  in  this  place,  than  that  between  Abraham, 
as  sole  heir  of  the  promise,  and  the  rest  of  men,  who  were  excluded  from 
it.     The  design  of  the  Prophet  is  not  so  much  to  magnify  the  honour  put 
upon   Abraham  by  choosing  him  out  of  the  whole  race  to  be  the  father  of 
the  faithful,  as  it  is  to  show  the  power  and  faithfulness  of  God  in  making 
this  one  man  a  nation  like  the  stars  of  heaven  for  multitude,  according  to 
the  promise  (Gen.  15:  5).     Noyes's  version,  a  single  man,  is  rendered  by 
the  modern  usage  of  that  phrase  almost  ludicrously  equivocal,  and  neces- 
sarily suggests  an  idea  directly  at  variance  with  the  facts  of  the  case  ;  unless 
he  really  infers  from  the  exclusive  mention  of  Abraham  in  this  clause,  thai 
he  was  called  before  his  marriage,  wliich  can  hardly  be  reconciled  with  the 
sacred  narrative  (compare  Gen.  11  :  29  and  12:1,  5),  and,  even  if  it  were 
true,  would  scarcely  have  been  solemnly  aflirmed  in  this  connexion,  since 
the  promise,  whatever  its  precise  date,   presupposed  bis  marriage  as  the 
necessary  means  of  its  fulfilment. — Interpreters,  with  almost  perfect  unani- 
mity, explain  the  two  verbs  at  the  end  of  this  verse  as  expressing  past  time 
(and  I  blessed  him  and  caused  him  to  increase),  although  the  vav  prefixed 
to  neither  has  the  pointing  of  the  vav  conversive,  in  default  of  which  the 
preterite  translation  is  entirely  gratuitous  and  therefore  ungrammatical.     The 
masoretic   pointing,  it  is  true,  is  not  of  absolute  authority,  but  it  is  of  the 
highest  value  as  the  record  of  an  ancient  critical  tradition  ;  and  the  very  fact 
that  it  departs  in  this  case  from  the  sense  which  all  interpreters  have  felt  to 
be  most  obvious  and  natural,  creates  a  strong  presumption  that  it  rests  upon 
some  high  authority  or  some  profound  view  of  the  Prophet's  meaning.     And 
we  find  accordingly  that  by  adhering  to  the  strict  sense  of  the  future,  we 
not  only  act  in  accordance  with  a  most  important  general  principle  of  exe- 
gesis, but  obtain  a  sense  which,  though  less  obvious  than  the  common  one,  is 


CHAPTER    LI.  217 

really  better  in  Itself  and  better  suited  to  the  context.  According  to  the 
usual  interpretation,  this  verse  simply  asserts  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  to 
Abraham,  leaving  the  reader  to  connect  it  with  what  follows  as  he  can. 
But  by  a  strict  translation  of  the  futures,  they  are  made  to  furnish  an  easy 
and  natural  transition  from  the  one  case  to  the  other,  from  the  great  histori- 
cal example  cited  to  the  subject  which  it  was  intended  to  illustrate.  The 
concise  phrase,  one  I  called  him,  really  includes  a  citation  of  the  promise 
made  to  Abraham,  and  suggests  the  fact  of  its  fulfilment,  so  far  as  this  had 
yet  taken  place.  The  Prophet,  speaking  in  Jehovah's  name,  then  adds  a 
declaration  that  the  promise  should  be  still  more  gloriously  verified.  As  if 
he  had  said,  I  pron)ised  to  bless  him  and  increase  him,  and  I  did  so,  and  I 
will  bless  him  and  increase  him  (still).  Rut  how  ?  By  showing  mercy  to 
his  seed,  as  I  have  determined  and  begun  to  do.  This  last  idea  is  expressed 
in  the  first  clause  of  the  next  verse,  which  is  then  no  longer  incoherent  or 
abrupt,  but  in  the  closest  and  most  natural  connexion  with  what  goes  before. 
This  consideration  might  have  less  force  if  the  illustration  had  been  drawn 
from  the  experience  of  another  race, — for  instance  from  the  history  of  Egypt 
or  Assyria,  or  even  from  the  increase  of  the  sons  of  Lot  or  Ishmael  ;  but 
when  the  promise  which  he  wished  to  render  credible  is  really  a  repetition 
or  continuation  of  the  one  which  he  cites  as  an  illustrative  example,  the 
intimate  connexion  thus  established  or  revealed  between  them  is  a  strong 
proof  that  the  explanation  which  involves  it  is  the  true  one. 

V.  3.  For  Jehovah  hath  comforted  Zion.  The  arbitrary  character  of 
the  usual  construction  of  these  sentences  may  be  learned  from  the  fact  that 
Rosenmiiller  and  Gesenius,  not  content  with  making  both  the  futures  at  the 
close  of  the  second  verse  preterites,  explain  both  the  preterites  in  this  clause 
as  futures, — a  double  violation  of  analogy  and  usage,  which  seems  to  leave 
the  meaning  of  the  writer  wholly  at  the  mercy  of  the  reader  or  expounder. 
From  the  same  erroneous  understanding  of  the  closing  words  of  v.  2  springs 
the  forced  interpretation  of  the  "^3  at  the  beginning  of  this,  as  meaning  so 
(Gesenius),  thus  therefore  (Lovvth),  and  the  still  more  unnatural  construc- 
tion of  the  whole  clause  by  Hitzig,  as  the  apodosis  of  a  comparative  sen- 
tence beginning  in  the  first  verse  :  '  As  I  called  him  alone,  and  blessed  him, 
and  increased  him,  so  does  Jehovah  pity  Zion,'  etc.  As  soon  as  the  strict 
sense  of  the  futures  In  v.  2  has  been  reinstated,  the  connexion  becomes 
obvious  and  "^3  retains  its  usual  and  proper  sense.  'I  have  blessed  and 
increased  him,  and  I  will  bless  and  increase  him  ;  for  Jehovah  has  begun  to 
comfort  Zion.'  The  strong  assurance  thus  afforded  by  the  strict  translation 
of  the  preterite  on?  conspires  with  analogy  and  usage  to  give  it  the  pre- 
ference over  the  vague  evasive  present  form,  employed  by  Hitzig,  Ewald, 
and  De  Wette.     This  view  of  the  connexion  also  supersedes  the  necessity 


218  CH  A  P  TE  R    L  I. 

of  laying  an  unusual  stress  on  the  name  Jehovah,  as  J.  H.  Michaelis  does, 
as  if  ho  had  said,  it  is  God  not  man  that  comforts  Zion. — Gesenius  translates 
cnD ,  in  this  case,  '  will  have  mercy  or  compassion  '  (wird  sich  crharmeii),  in 
which  he  is  followed  hy  De  Wette  and  Henderson.  But  even  his  own 
Lexicon  gives  no  such  definition  of  the  Piel,  and  the  Niphal,  though  coin- 
cident in  this  tense  as  to  form,  would,  according  to  usage,  take  a  preposition 
after  it.  Besides,  the  proper  sense  of  comforting,  retained  by  Ewald  and 
the  other  Germans,  is  more  appropriate,  because  it  expresses  not  mere  feel- 
ing but  its  active  exhibition,  and  because  the  same  verb  is  employed  at  the 
very  outset  of  these  prophecies  (ch.  40  :  1)  in  the  same  application,  but  in 
a  connexion  where  the  sense  of  pitying  or  having  mercy  is  wholly  inade- 
quate if  not  inadmissible.  The  comparison  of  that  place  also  shows  what 
we  are  here  to  understand  by  Zion,  viz.  Jehovah's  people,  of  which  it  was 
the  capital,  the  sanctuary,  and  the  symbol.  What  is  there  commanded  is 
here,  in  a  certain  sort,  performed,  or  its  performance  more  distinctly  and 
positively  promised. — He  hath  comforted  all  her  wastes  (or  ruins),  i.  e. 
restored  cheerfulness  to  what  was  wholly  desolate.  This  phrase  proves 
nothing  as  to  the  Prophet's  viewing  Zion  merely  as  a  ruinous  city,  since 
in  any  case  this  is  the  substratum  of  his  metaphor.  The  question  is  not 
whether  he  has  reference  to  Zion  or  Jerusalem  as  a  town,  but  whether  this 
town  is  considered  merely  as  a  town,  and  mentioned  for  its  own  sake,  or  in 
the  sense  before  explained,  as  the  established  representative  and  emblem  of 
the  church  or  chosen  people.  (See  above,  on  ch.  49 :  21 .) — And  hath  placed 
or  made  her  loilderness  like  Eden,  and  her  desert  like  the  garden  of  the  Lord. 
This  beautiful  comparison  is  the  strongest  possible  expression  of  a  joyful 
change  from  total  barrenness  and  desolation  to  the  highest  pitch  of  fertility 
and  beauty.  It  is  closely  copied  in  Ezekiel  31:9;  but  the  same  com- 
parison, in  more  concise  terms,  is  employed  by  Moses  (Gen.  13  :  10). 
Even  there,  notwithstanding  what  is  added  about  Egypt,  but  still  more 
unequivocally  here,  the  reference  is  not  to  a  garden  or  to  pleasure-grounds 
in  general,  as  Luther  and  several  of  the  later  Germans  have  assumed,  with 
no  small  damage  to  the  force  and  beauty  of  their  versions,  but  Eden  as  a 
proper  name,  the  garden  of  Jehovah,  the  Paradise,  as  the  Septuagint 
renders  it,  both  here  and  in  Gen.  2:  8,  the  grand  historical  and  yet  ideal 
designation  of  the  most  consummate  terrene  excellence,  analogous,  if  not 
still  more  nearly  related,  to  the  Grecian  pictures  of  Arcadia  and  of  Tempe. 
— Joy  and  gladness  shall  he  found  in  her,  i.  e.  in  Zion,  thus  transformed 
into  a  paradise.  The  plural  form,  in  them,  employed  by  Barnes,  is  not 
only  inexact  but  hurtful  to  the  sense,  by  withdrawing  the  attention  from  the 
central  figure  of  this  glowing  landscape.  Shall  be  found  does  not  simply 
mean  shall  be,  as  J.  D.  Michaelis  paraphrases  it,  but  also  that  they  shall 
be  there  accessible,  not  only  present  in  their  abstract  essence,  as  it  were. 


CHAPTER    LI.  219 

but  in  the  actual  experience  of  those  who  dwell  there. —  Thanksgiving  and 
the  voice  of  melody.  The  music  of  the  common  version  of  this  last  clause 
is  at  once  too  familiar  and  too  sacred  to  be  superseded,  simply  for  the  pur- 
pose of  expressing  more  distinctly  the  exact  sense  of  the  last  word,  which 
originally  signifies  the  sound  of  an  instrument  or  instrumental  music,  but  is 
afterwards  used  to  denote  song  in  general,  or  rather  as  a  vehicle  of  praise 
to  God. 

V.  4.  Attend  (or  hearken)  unto  me,  my  people ;  and  my  nation,  unto 
me  give  ear.  This  may  seem  to  be  a  violation  of  the  usage  which  has  been 
already  stated  as  employing  this  form  of  speech  to  indicate  a  change  in  the 
object  of  address.  But  such  a  change,  although  a  slight  one,  takes  place 
even  here  ;  for  he  seems  no  longer  to  address  those  seeking  righteousness 
exclusively,  but  the  whole  body  of  the  people  as  such.  Some  interpreters 
suppose  a  change  still  greater,  namely  a  transition  from  the  Jews  to  the 
Gentiles.  In  order  to  admit  of  this,  the  text  must  be  amended  or  its  obvious 
sense  explained  away.  Lowth,  of  course,  prefers  the  former  method,  and 
reads  ci»?  on  the  authority  of  two  manuscripts,  and  cibx^  on  the  authority 
of  nine.  Gesenius  gains  the  same  end  by  explaining  "'M?  and  "lasix^,  as 
unusual  plural  forms,  the  first  of  which  he  also  finds  in  three  other  places 
(2  Sam.  22  :  44.  Ps.  144  :  2.  Lam.  3  :  14).  Ewald  denies  the  existence 
of  such  a  termination,  against  which  he  argues  with  much  force  that  in  these 
four  places,  however  inappropriate  the  sense  my  people  may  appear  to  the 
interpreter,  no  one  pretends  to  say  that  it  is  absurd  or  impossible,  while  in 
every  other  case  the  very  meaning  of  the  noun  is  so  obscure  that  it  can 
throw  no  light  upon  the  question  of  form.  The  discussion  of  the  question 
by  these  eminent  grammarians  (in  the  Lehrgebaude  ^  124  and  the  Kritische 
Grammatik  '^  164)  has  left  the  existence  of  the  plural  form  in  question  at 
the  least  very  doubtful  (see  Nordheimer  *§.  553) ;  and  even  if  it  be  conceded, 
it  is  confessedly  so  rare  that  it  is  not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity  in 
such  a  case  as  this,  simply  because  it  may  conceivably  be  true,  when  the 
sense  which  the  word  has  in  nearly  two  hundred  places  is  perfectly  appro- 
priate here.  The  only  argument  in  favour  of  it,  drawn  from  the  connexion, 
is  without  force,  because  the  dependence  of  the  gentiles  upon  Israel  for 
saving  knowledge  might  be  just  as  well  asserted  in  addressing  the  latter  as 
the  former,  as  appears  from  the  analogy  of  ch.  2  :  3.  The  same  reasons 
which  have  now  been  stated  will  suffice  to  set  aside  Maurer's  gratuitous 
interpretation  of  the  words  as  singular  collectives,  which  might  be  assumed 
in  a  case  of  extreme  exegetical  necessity,  but  in  no  other. — The  next 
clause  explains  what  it  is  that  they  are  thus  called  upon  to  hear,  viz.  that 
law  from   me  shall  go  forth,  i.  e.  revelation  or  the  true  religion,  as  an 


220  CHAPTER    LI. 

expression  of  God's  will,  and  consequently  man's  rule  of  duty.  In  like 
manner  Paul  describes  the  gospel  as  the  latv  of  faith  (Rom.  3  :  27),  not 
binding  upon  one  race  or  nation  merely,  but  by  the  commandment  of  the 
everlasting  God  made  known  to  all  nations  for  the  obedience  of  faith 
(Rom.  IG  :  26).  J.  D.  Michaelis,  followed  by  Rosenmiiller  and  De  Wette, 
dilutes  it  into  a  doctrine  (eine  Lehre),  which,  although  correct  in  point  of 
etymology,  is  justified  neither  by  the  context  nor  by  usage.  Ewald  gives 
the  same  translation  of  the  word,  but  makes  it  less  indefinite  by  adding  the 
possessive  pronoun  (meim  Lehre).  The  meaning  of  the  clause  is  that  the 
nations  can  expect  illumination  only  from  one  quarter. — The  same  thing  is 
then  said  in  another  form.  And  my  judgment  (y^'^.'>r  an  equivalent  to  iTJ'in 
and  combined  with  it  like  lex  and  jus  in  Latin)  for  a  light  of  the  nations 
(as  in  cli.  42  :  6.  49  ;  6)  will  I  cause  to  rest,  i.  e.  fix.  establish.  Jarchi 
explains  it  by  the  synonyme  n'^sx ,  which  is  frequently  en)ployed  in  this 
sense  (e.  g.  ch.  46  :  7.  2  Kings  17  :  29).  The  meanings  given  to  the  word 
by  Calvin  (^j^atefaciam),  Cocceius  (^promovebo),  Lowth  (cause  to  break 
forth),  and  others,  are  either  wholly  conjectural  or  founded  on  a  false  ety- 
mology. Aben  Ezra  speaks  of  some  as  having  made  it  a  denominative 
from  "i"! ,  meaning  '  I  will  do  it  in  a  moment.'  Kimchi  strangely  says  that 
n^5s:^  nixb  may  mean  in  the  irresence  of  the  gentiles, — a  suggestion  which 
savours  of  rabbinical  reluctance  to  believe  in  the  conversion  of  the  world  to 
God.  As  specimens  of  exegesis  on  the  most  contracted  scale,  it  may  be 
mentioned,  that  Piscator  understands  by  law,  in  this  verse,  Cyrus's  decree 
for  the  restoration  of  the  Jewish  exiles,  and  by  light  the  knowledge  of  this 
great  event  among  the  nations  ;  whereas  Grotius  explains yuc/g-mcn^  to  mean 
penal  inflictions  on  the  Babylonians,  and  light  the  evidence  thereby  aflbrded 
that  Jehovah  was  the  true  God.  The  groundless  and  injurious  piotrusion 
of  the  Babylonish  exile  as  the  great  theme  of  the  prophecy  is  here  aban- 
doned even  by  Kimchi  and  Abarbenel,  although  they  refer  the  promise  to 
the  advent  of  Messiah  as  still  future.  The  simple  proposition  that  the 
world  can  be  converted  only  by  a  revelation  admits  no  more  of  being  thus 
restricted  than  any  of  the  spiritual  promises  and  prophecies  contained  in 
the  New  Testament. 

V.  5.  Near  (is)  my  righteousness,  i.  e.  the  exhibition  of  it  in  the 
changes  previously  promised  and  threatened.  Near,  as  often  elsewhere 
in  the  prophecies,  is  an  indefinite  expression  which  describes  it  sim- 
ply as  approaching,  and  as  actually  near  to  the  perceptions  of  the  Pro- 
phet or  to  any  one  who  occupies  the  same  point  of  vision. — Go7ie  forth 
is  my  salvation.  Not  only  is  the  purpose  formed,  and  the  decree  gone 
forth,  but  the  event  itself,  in  the  sense  just  explained,  may  be  described 


CHAPTERLI.  221 

as  past  or  actually  passing.  HItzig,  however,  understands  ns*i  to  mean 
'it  goes  forth  from  my  mouth/  as  in  ch.  48:  3.  55  :  ]  1.  Umbreit  agrees 
with  Vitringa  in  supposing  an  allusion  to  the  rising  of  the  sun  (Ps. 
19:6,  7),  or,  as  Gesenius  suggests,  to  the  dawning  of  the  day  (ch. 
47  :  11)  ;  while  Ewald  and  Knobel  understand  it  as  referrino-  to  the 
springing  or  incipient  germination  of  plants,  which  is  properly  expressed  by 
nri  (ch,  42:  9),  the  two  verbs  being  elsewhere  used  as  parallels  in  this 
sense  (Job  5  :  6).  But  none  of  these  ingenious  explanations  is  so  natural 
as  that  which  gives  ss;;i  the  same  sense  as  in  the  preceding  verse,  viz.  that 
of  issuing  or  going  forth  from  God  (conceived  as  resident  in  heaven  or  in 
Zion)  to  the  heathen  w^orld. — And  my  arms  shall  judge  the  nations.  As 
the  foregoing  clause  contains  a  promise,  some  interpreters  suppose  it  to  be 
necessary  to  give  judge  the  favourable  sense  of  vindicating,  righting  (as  in 
ch.  1  :  17,  23),  or  at  least  the  generic  one  of  ruling  (as  in  1  Sam.  8:  5). 
But  nothing  can  be  more  in  keeping  with  the  usage  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  of  this  book  in  particular,  than  the  simultaneous  exhibition  of  God's 
justice  in  his  treatment  both  of  friends  and  foes.  (Compare  ch.  1  :  27.) 
There  is  no  objection,  therefore,  to  Jarchi's  explanation  of  the  verb  as 
meaning  here  to  punish  ;  this  at  least  may  be  included  as  a  part  of  the  idea 
which  it  was  intended  to  express. — J.  D.  IMichaelis,  supposing  the  construc- 
tion of  r-"~'f  (which  is  feminine)  with  a  masculine  verb  to  be  ungrammatical, 
proposes,  by  a  change  of  punctuation,  to  connect  the  one  with  what  pre- 
cedes, and  then  to  read,  the  nations  shall  be  judged.  This  hypercriticism 
provokes  Gesenius  to  convict  its  author  of  deficiency  in  Hebrew  grammar, 
which  he  does  by  showing  that  in  Gen.  49:  24  and  Dan.  11  :  31  this  form 
of  the  plural  is  construed  as  a  masculine,  to  w'hich  he  adds  a  like  use  of  the 
singular  itself  in  Is.  17  :  5. — For  me  shall  the  islands  wait,  i.  e.  for  me 
they  must  wait,  until  I  reveal  myself  they  must  remain  in  darkness.  (See 
above,  on  ch.  42  :  4.)  Here  again,  as  in  ch.  41 :  1.  42:  4.  etc.,  c^x  is 
explained  to  mean  lands,  distant  lands,  coasts,  distant  coasts,  western  lands, 
Europe,  Northern  Asia,  and  Asia  Minor.  As  in  all  the  former  instances, 
however,  the  usual  sense  o[  islands  is  entirely  appropriate,  as  a  poetical  or 
representative  expression  for  countries  in  general,  with  more  particular  refer- 
ence to  those  across  the  sea. — And  in  my  arm  they  shall  hope,  i.  e.  in  the 
exercise  of  my  almighty  power.  As  in  ch.  42  :  6,  the  sense  is  not  so  much 
that  they  shall  exercise  a  feeling  of  trust,  but  that  this  will  be  their  onlv 
hope  or  dependence.  To  be  enlightened,  they  must  v/ait  for  my  revelation  : 
to  be  saved,  for  the  exertion  of  my  power.  It  is  not  descriptive,  therefore, 
of  the  feelings  of  the  nations  after  the  way  of  salvation  is  made  known  to 
them,  but  of  their  helpless  and  desperate  condition  until  they  hear  it.  True 
to  their  favourite  hypotheses,  Piscator  understands  by  islands  the  Israelites 


222  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I . 

captives  in  Assyria,  Grolius  the  Persians  residing  on  the  sea-coast,  who 
were  not  idolaters!  Knobel,  with  equal  confidence  and  ecjiial  reason,  makes 
tile  verse  refer  to  the  downfal  of  Croesus  and  the  conquests  of  Cyrus. 

V.  6.  Raise  to  the  heavens  your  eyes,  and  look  unto  the  earth  beneath.  A 
similar  form  of  address  occurs  above,  in  ch.  40  :  26.  (Compare  Gen.  15  :  5.) 
Heaven  and  earth  are  here  put,  as  in  many  other  places,  for  the  whole  frame 
of  nature.  The  next  clause  explains  why  they  are  called  upon  to  look. 
For  the  heavens  like  smoke  are  dissolved  or  driven  away.  The  verb  in  this 
form  occurs  no  where  else,  and  the  interpreters  have  tried  in  vain  to  derive 
its  meaning  here  from  other  cognate  forms  of  the  same  root,  which  all  have 
reference  to  salting  (from  the  primitive  noun  n'^a  salt).  So  Symmachus  in 
this  place,  aliaovai.  But  this,  according  to  analogy,  would  rather  imply 
perpetuity  than  its  opposite.  The  link  between  them  niay  consist  in  the 
idea  of  reducing  to  powder  or  minute  dust  by  trituration,  which  is  equally 
appropriate  to  salt  and  to  the  dissolution  of  any  solid  substance.  JMost 
writers  give  this  verb  a  future  sense  (or  a  present  one  as  an  evasive  substi- 
tute), because  the  real  future  follows  ;  but  for  this  very  reason  it  may  be 
presumed  that  the  writer  used  distinct  forms  to  express  distinct  ideas,  and 
that  he  first  gives  a  vivid  description  of  the  dissolution  as  already  past,  and 
then  foretells  its  consummation  as  still  future. — And  the  earth  like  the  gar- 
ment (which  grows  old)  shall  grow  old  (or  wear  out).  The  same  compari- 
son occurs  above  in  ch.  50:  9,  and  serves  to  identify  the  passages  as  parts 
of  one  continued  composition.  And  their  inhabitants  shall  die,  "i^'i-S. 
This  is  a  difficult  expression.  Cocceius  alone  proposes  three  distinct  inter- 
pretations, all  peculiar  to  himself.  In  his  version  he  translates  the  phrase 
ut  quivis,  which  appears  to  mean  '  like  any  body  else.'  But  in  his  com- 
mentary he  suggests  that  it  may  possibly  mean  quemadmodum  jjrohus,  making 
',3  an  adjective,  and  supposing  an  allusion  to  the  death  of  the  righteous  as 
described  in  ch.  57:  1,2.  His  third  supposition  is  that  this  is  a  case  of 
aposiopesis  or  interrupted  construction,  and  that  the  writer  first  says  they 
shall  die  like — but  before  the  comparison  is  finished  ends  by  saying  so — as 
if  he  pointed  to  the  spectacle  before  him.  Samuel  Luzzatto  makes  the 
phrase  mean  in  an  instant,  strictly  in  the  time  required  to  say  "i? ,  which  he 
compares  to  the  German  phrase,  in  einem  Nu.  Apart  from  these  ingenious 
notions,  there  are  only  two  interpretations  of  the  phrase  which  are  entitled 
to  notice.  The  first  takes  both  words  in  their  ordinary  sense,  and  under- 
stands the  whole  as  an  intensive  expression  just  so  or  exactly  so.  This 
seems  to  be  the  sense  intended  by  the  Septuagint  (Jogtisq  ravia)  and  Vulgate 
{sicut  haec),  although  they  adhere  less  closely  to  the  form  of  the  original 
than  Schraidius  (sicut  sic)  and  Ruckert  (^so  wie  so).  The  only  other  recent 
versions  which  retain  this  sense  are  those  of  Barnes  and  Henderson.    Noyes 


CHAPTERLI.  223 

and  the  modern  Germans  all  adopt  the  opinion  of  De  Dieu,  Gussetius,  and 
Vitringa,  that  ]3  is  the  singular  of  ""^iS,  the  word  translated  lice  in  the  liis- 
tory  of  the  plagues  of  Egypt  (Ex.  8:12,  13),  hut  explained  by  the  later 
lexicographers  to  mean  a  kind  of  stinging  gnat.  Supposing  the  essential 
idea  to  be  that  of  a  contemptible  animalcule,  Vitringa  renders  it  instar  ver- 
micuK,  Lowth  still  more  freely  like  the  vilest  insect.  Noyes  simply  says 
like  flies,  which  scarcely  expresses  the  comparison  supposed  by  these  writers 
to  have  been  intended.  It  is  not  impossible  that  this  ingenious  but  fanciful 
translation  will  yet  be  abandoned  in  its  turn  by  most  interpreters  for  that 
recommended  by  analogy  and  usage  as  well  as  by  the  testimony  of  the  an- 
cient versions.  The  inhabitants  shall  die  like  a  gnat,  is  a  meaning  which, 
in  order  to  be  purchased  at  so  dear  a  rate,  ought  to  possess  some  marked 
superiority  above  the  old  one,  they  shall  likewise  perish,  to  which  there  may 
possibly  be  an  allusion  in  our  Saviour's  words  recorded  in  Luke  13:3,  5. — 
The  contrast  to  this  general  destruction  is  contained  in  the  last  clause. 
And  my  salvation  to  eternity  shall  be,  and  my  righteousness  shall  not  be 
broken,  i.  e.  shall  not  cease  from  being  what  it  is,  in  which  sense  the  same 
verb  is  evidently  used  by  Isaiah  elsewhere  (ch.  7  :  8).  In  this  as  in  many 
other  cases,  salvation  and  righteousness  are  not  synonymous  but  merely 
correlative  as  cause  and  effect.  (See  above,  on  ch.  42  :  6.)  The  only 
question  as  to  this  clause  is  whether  it  is  a  hypothetical  or  absolute  pro- 
position. If  the  former,  then  the  sense  is  that  until  (or  even  if)  the  frame 
of  nature  be  dissolved,  the  justice  and  salvation  of  Jehovah  shall  remain 
unshaken.  This  explanation  is  preferred  by  Joseph  Kimchi,  Rosenmiil- 
ler,  Gesenius,  and  Maurer.  The  other  interpretation  understands  the  first 
clause  as  a  positive  and  independent  declaration  that  the  heavens  and  earth 
shall  be  dissolved,  which  Vitringa  understands  to  mean  that  the  old  economy 
shall  cease,  while  others  give  these  words  their  literal  meaning.  All  these 
hypotheses  are  reconcilable  by  making  the  first  clause  mean,  as  similar 
expressions  do  mean  elsewhere,  that  the  most  extraordinary  changes  shall  be 
witnessed,  moral  and  physical ;  but  that  amidst  them  all  this  one  thing  shall 
remain  unchangeable,  the  righteousness  of  God  as  displayed  in  the  salvation 
of  his  people.  (See  ch.  40:  8.  65:  17.  Matt.  5:  18.  1  John  2:  17.) 
Knobel  thinks  that  the  ancient  prophets  actually  looked  for  a  complete  revo- 
lution in  the  face  of  nature,  coetaneous  and  coincident  with  the  moral  and 
spiritual  changes  which  they  foretold. 

V.  7.  Hearken  unto  me,  ye  that  knoic  righteousness,  people  (with)  my 
law  in  their  heart;  fear  not  the  reproach  of  men,  arid  by  their  scoffs  be  not 
broken  (in  spirit,  i.  e.  terrified).  The  distinction  here  implied  is  still  that 
between  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  as  the  two  great  classes  of  mankind. 


224  CHAPTERLI. 

Those  who  are  described  in  v.  1  as  seclcing  after  righteousness  are  here 
said  to  knoiv  it,  i.  e.  know  it  by  experience.  Vitringa  and  Gesenius  explain 
the  Hebrew  verb  as  meaning  love ;  but  this  is  an  arbitrary  substitution  of 
what  may  be  considered  as  imphed  for  what  is  really  expressed.  The 
presence  of  the  law  in  the  heart  denotes  not  mere  affection  for  it  but  a  cor- 
rect apprehension  of  it,  as  the  heart  in  Hebrew  is  put  for  the  whole  mind  or 
soul  ;  it  is  therefore  a  just  parallel  to  knowing  in  the  other  member  of  the 
clause, — The  opposite  class,  or  those  who  know  not  what  is  right,  and  who 
have  not  God's  law  in  their  heart,  are  comprehended  under  the  generic  title 
tnan,  with  particular  reference  to  the  derivation  of  the  Hebrew  word  from  a 
root  meaning  to  be  weak  or  sickly,  so  that  its  application  here  suggests  the 
idea  of  their  frailty  and  mortality,  as  a  sufficient  reason  why  God's  people 
should  not  be  afraid  of  them. 

V.  8.  For  like  the  (moth-eaten)  garment  shall  the  moth  devour  thtm. 
and  like  the  (worm-eaten)  wool  shall  the  ivorm  devour  them.;  and  my  right- 
eousness to  eternity  shall  be,  and  my  salvation  to  an  age  of  ages.  The 
same  contrast  between  God's  immutability  and  the  brief  duration  of  his 
enemies,  is  presented  in  ch.  50  :  9  and  in  v.  6  above. 

V.  9.  Awake,  awake,  put  on  strength,  arm  of  Jehovah,  awake,  as  (in 
the)  days  of  old,  the  ages  of  eternities  ;  art  not  thou  the  same  that  heived 
Rahah  in  jjicces,  that  ivounded  the  serpent  or  dragonl  The  Septuagint 
makes  Jerusalem  the  object  of  address,  in  which  it  is  followed  by  some 
modern  writers,  who  suppose  the  arm  of  Jehovah  to  be  mentioned  as  a 
synonyme  or  figurative  paraphrase  of  the  strength  with  which  she  is 
exhorted  to  invest  herself.  This  addition  would  however  be  at  once  so 
harsh  and  so  gratuitous,  that  most  interpreters  appear  to  acquiesce  in  the 
more  obvious  explanation  of  the  words  as  addressed  directly  to  the  arm  of 
Jehovah  as  the  symbol  of  his  power.  Gesenius's  idea,  that  Jehovah  thus 
calls  upon  his  own  arm  to  awake,  is  as  unnatural  as  Vitringa's  supposition 
of  a  chorus  of  saints  or  doctors.  The  only  probable  hypothesis  is  that 
which  puts  the  words  into  the  mouth  of  the  people  or  of  the  Prophet  a? 
their  representative.  The  verse  is  then  a  highly  figurative  but  by  no  means 
an  obscure  appeal  to  the  former  exertion  of  that  power,  as  a  reason  for  its 
renewed  exertion  in  the  present  case.  The  particular  example  cited  seems 
to  be  the  overthrow  of  Egypt,  here  described  by  the  enigmatical  name 
Rahah,  for  the  origin  and  sense  of  which  see  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  510. 
The  same  thing  is  probably  intended  by  the  parallel  term  V?^;  whether 
this  be  understood  to  mean  an  aquatic  monster  in  the  general,  or  more  spe- 
cifically the  crocodile,  the  natural  and  immemorial  emblem  of  Egypt. 


CHAPTERLI.  225 

V.  10.  Art  not  thou  the  same  that  dried  the  sea,  the  tenters  of  the 
great  deejj,  that  placed  the  depths  of  the  sea  (^as)  a  way  for  the  pa.'isaire  of 
redeemed  ones?  The  allusion  to  tlie  overthrow  of  Egypt  is  ciuried  out  and 
completed  by  a  distinct  mention  of  the  miraculous  passa^^e  of  the  Rt  d  Sra. 
The  interrogative  form  of  the  sentence  is  equivalent  to  a  direct  afiiniuiiion 
that  it  is  the  same  arm,  or  in  other  words,  that  the  same  power  which 
destroyed  the  Egyptians  for  the  sake  of  Israel  still  exists,  and  ma}'  again  be 
exerted  for  a  similar  purpose.  The  confidence  that  this  will  be  done  is 
expressed  somewhat  abruptly  in  the  next  verse. 

V.  11.  And  the  ransotned  of  Jehovah  shall  return  and  come  to  Zion 
ivith  shouting,  and  everlasting  joy  upon  their  head  ;  gladness  and  joy  shall 
overtake  (^them),  sorrow  and  sighing  have  fled  away.  The  same  wcncis  occur 
in  ch.  35  :  10,  except  that  ^t'^-^  is  there  written  in  iis  usual  form,  wiiliout 
the  final  ' ,  and  that  >id3  is  preceded  by  the  Vav  conversive.  Some  manu- 
scripts exhibit  the  same  reading  here,  and  the  difft^rence  mii;ht  be  considered 
accidental,  but  for  the  fact  that  such  variations  are  often  nuule  inientionally. 
See  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  587. 

V.  12.  /,  /,  am  he  that  comforteth  you;  loho  art  thou,  that  thou 
shouldest  be  afraid  of  man  (loho)  is  to  die,  and  of  the  son  of  man  uho 
(as)  grass  is  to  be  given!  The  important  truth  is  here  rc-iterated,  that 
Jehovah  is  not  only  the  deliverer  but  the  sole  deliverer  of  his  people,  and 
as  the  necessary  consequence,  that  they  have  not  only  no  need  Ijiit  no  right 
to  be  afraid,  which  seems  to  be  the  force  of  the  interrogation,  Uho  art  thou 
that  thou  shouldest  be  afraid,  or  still  more  literally,  who  art  thou  and  thou 
hast  been  afraid!  i.  e.  consider  who  is  thy  protector,  and  then  recollect  that 
thou  hast  been  afraid.  The  elytr)ological  import  ol  ci:x  is  rendered  still 
more  prominent  in  this  case  by  the  additio/i  of  the  word  ^^'Z'^  ,  before  w hich 
a  relative  may  be  supplied  in  order  to  conform  it  to  our  idiom,  although  the 
original  construction  is  rather  that  of  a  complete  but  parenthetical  propo- 
sition. '  Afraid  of  man  (he  shall  die),  and  of  the  son  of  man  (as  grass  he 
shall  be  given).'  This  last  verb  is  commonly  explained  as  if  simply  equiva- 
lent to  he  shall  be  or  shall  become,  which  is  hardly  consistent  with  its  usatre 
elsewhere.  Some  adhere  more  closely  to  the  strict  sense  by  supposing  it  to 
mean  he  shall  be  given  up,  abandoned  to  destruction.  There  is  no  need  of 
supposing  a  grammatical  ellipsis  of  the  preposition  3,  since  the  relation  of 
resemblance  is  in  many  cases  suggested  by  a  simple  ap|)osition,  as  in  the 
English  phrase,  he  reigns  a  sovereign.  On  the  comparison  itself,  see  above, 
ch.  40  :  6. 

V.  13.  And  hast  forgotten  Jehovah  thy  Maker,  spreading  the  heavens 

15 


226  C  II  A  P  T  E  R    L  r . 

and  founding  the  earth,  and  hast  trembled  continuaUy  all  the  day,  from 
before  the  wrath  of  the  oppressor  as  he  made  ready  to  destroy  ?  And  where 
is  (now)  the  wrath  of  the  oppressor  1  The  form  of  expression  in  the  first 
clause  makes  it  still  more  clear  that  the  statement  in  v.  12  is  not  merely 
hypothetical  but  historical,  implying  that  they  had  actually  feared  man  and 
forgotten  God.  Tlie  epithets  added  to  God's  name  are  not  merely  orna- 
mental, much  less  superfluous,  but  strictly  appropriate,  because  suggestive  of 
almighty  power,  which  ensured  the  performance  of  his  promise  and  the 
effectual  protection  of  his  people. —  Continually  all  the  day  is  an  emphatic 
pleonasm,  such  as  are  occasionally  used  in  every  language. — From  before  is 
a  common  Hebrew  idiom  for  because  of,  on  account  of,  but  may  here  be 
taken  in  its  strict  sense  as  expressive  of  alarm  and  flight  before  an  enemy. 
(See  ch.  2:  19.) — Some  render  "i^'xs  as  if,  to  which  there  are  two  objec- 
tions :  first,  the  want  of  any  satisfactory  authority  from  usage  ;  and  secondly, 
the  fact  that  the  words  then  imply  that  no  such  attempt  has  really  been 
made.  As  if  he  could  destroy  would  be  appropriate  enough,  because  it  is 
merely  an  indirect  denial  of  his  power  to  do  so  ;  but  it  cannot  be  intend- 
ed to  deny  that  he  had  aimed  at  it. — 'Sis  is  particularly  used  in  reference 
to  the  preparation  of  the  bow  for  shooting  by  the  adjustment  of  the  arrow 
on  the  string  ;  some  suppose  that  it  specifically  signifies  the  act  of  taking 
aim.  (Ps.  7  :  13.  11  :  2.  21  :  13.) — The  question  at  the  close  implies  that 
the  wrath  is  at  an  end,  and  the  oppressor  himself  vanished.  We  have  no 
authority  for  limiting  this  reference  to  any  particular  historical  event.  It  is 
as  if  he  had  said,  How  often  have  you  trembled  when  your  oppressors 
threatened  to  destroy  you,  and  where  are  they  now  ?  Beck  absurdly  ima- 
gines that  the  writer  here  betrays  himself  as  writing  after  the  event  which 
he  aftects  to  foretell. — Ewald  seems  to  make  n^ntrn  a  denominative  from 
nnTiJ  meaning  to  send  to  hf>11  (^Vl  die  Holle  zu  senden)  ;  but  this,  although 
it  strengthens  the  expression,  bt-ptns  to  do  it  at  the  cost  of  philological 
exactness. 

V.  14.  He  hastens  hoiving  to  be  loosed,  and  he  shall  not  die  in  the  pit, 
and  his  bread  shall  not  fail.  The  essential  idea  is  that  of  liberation,  but 
with  some  obscurity  in  the  expression.  Some  give  to  nsbi  here  and  in  ch. 
63  :  1  the  sense  of  marching,  which  would  here  be  appropriate,  but  could 
not  be  so  easily  reconciled  with  the  other  cases  where  the  word  occurs. 
The  modern  lexicographers  appear  to  be  agreed  that  the  radical  meaning 
of  the  verb  is  that  of  bending,  either  backward  (as  in  ch.  63  :  1)  or  down- 
ward (as  in  Jer.  48  :  12  and  here).  The  latest  versions  accordingly  explain 
it  as  a  poetical  description  of  the  prisoner  bowed  down  under  chains.  With 
still  more  exactness  it  may  be  translated  as  a  participle  qualifying  the  indefi- 
nite subject  of  the  verb  at  the  beginning.     There  is  however  no  objection 


CHAPTERLl.  227 

to  the  usual  construction  of  the  word  as  a  noun  ;  the  sense  remains  the  same 
in  either  case. — The  next  clause  is  sometimes  taken  as  an  indirect  subjunc- 
tive proposition,  that  he  should  not  die  ;  but  it  is  best  to  make  it  a  direct 
affirmation  that  he  shall  not.  Ewald  gives  rn^ij  a  sense  corresponding  to 
that  of  the  verb  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  renders  the  entire  phrase  for 
hell,  i.  e.  so  as  to  descend  into  it.  If  the  noun  be  taken  in  this  sense,  or  in 
the  kindred  one  of  ^/\7i'e,  the  preposition  cannot  mean  in,  a  sense  moreover 
not  agreeable  to  usage.  Those  who  give  it  that  sense  here  are  under  the 
necessity  of  making  nniu  mean  the  dungeon,  which  is  a  frequent  sense  of  the 
analogous  term  "lia  .  But  whether  the  phrase  in  question  mean  for  hell,  or 
for  the  grave,  or  in  the  jnt,  or  to  destruction,  the  general  sense  is  still  that 
the  captive  shall  not  perish  in  captivity.  This  general  promise  is  then 
rendered  more  specific  by  the  assurance  that  he  shall  not  starve  to  death, 
which  seems  to  be  the  only  sense  that  can  be  put  upon  the  last  clause. 

V.  15.  And  I  («m)  Jehovah  thy  God,  rousing  the  sea  and  then  its 
waves  roar  ;  Jehovah  of  Hosts  (is)  his  name.  Another  appeal  to  the 
power  of  God  as  a  pledge  for  the  performance  of  his  promise.  "?"i  has 
been  understood  in  two  directly  opposite  senses,  that  of  stilling  and  that  of 
agitating.  The  first  is  strongly  recommended  by  the  not  unfrequent  use  of 
the  derivative  conjugations  in  the  sense  of  quieting  or  being  quiet.  The 
other  rests  upon  an  Arabic  analogy,  confirmed  however  by  the  context,  as 
'I'^C'iv-  'iTust  indicate  a  consequence  (^and  then  or  so  that),  and  not  an  ante- 
cedent (jvhen  they  roar)  as  explained  by  the  writers  who  take  i'?")  in  the 
sense  of  stilling,  and  even  by  Gesenius,  who  gives  that  verb  the  sense  of 
frightening.  Some  of  the  older  writers  seem  to  have  regarded  ?5~  as  a 
transposition  for  ^'^i  rebuking,  a  word  often  used  to  express  the  divine  con- 
trol over  nature,  and  especially  the  sea.      (See  above,  ch.  17  :  13.) 

V.  16.  And  I  have  put  my  words  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  the  shadow  of 
my  hand  I  have  hid  thee,  to  plant  the  heavens,  and  to  found  the  earth,  and 
to  say  to  Zion,  Thou  art  my  people.  That  these  words  are  not  addressed  to 
Zion  or  the  Church  is  evident  ;  because  in  the  last  clause  she  is  spoken  of 
in  the  third  person,  and  addressed  in  the  next  verse  with  a  sudden  change 
to  the  feminine  form  from  the  masculine  which  is  here  used.  That  it  is  not 
the  Prophet  may  be  readily  inferred  from  the  nature  of  the  work  described 
in  the  second  clause.  The  only  remaining  supposition  is  that  the  Messiah 
is  the  object  of  address,  and  that  his  work  or  mission  is  here  described,  viz. 
to  plant  the  heavens,  i.  e.  to  establish  them,  perhaps  with  allusion  to  the 
erection  of  a  tent  by  the  insertion  of  its  stakes  in  the  ground.  There  is  no 
need  of  reading  riiaab ,  as  Lowth  does  ;  since  the  usage  of  the  Scriptures  is 


228  CHAPTER    LI. 

rather  in  favour  of  variation  than  of  scrupulous  transcription.  The  whole 
clause  is  equivalent  to  creating  a  new  world,  which  must  here  he  taken  in 
a  figurative  sense  ;  hecause  the  literal  creation,  as  a  thing  already  past,  would 
here  be  inappropriate,  especially  when  followed  by  the  words,  to  nay  to  Ziori, 
thou  art  my  people.  Nothing  is  gained  by  referring  the  infinitives  to  God  him- 
self, as  Rosenmiiller  does  ;  because  the  person  here  addressed  is  still  described 
as  the  instrument  if  not  as  the  efficient  agent.  The  new  creation  thus 
announced  can  only  mean  the  reproduction  of  the  church  in  a  new  form,  by 
what  we  usually  call  the  change  of  dispensations.  The  outward  economy 
should  all  be  new,  and  yet  the  identity  of  the  chosen  people  should  remain 
unbroken.  For  he  whom  God  had  called  to  plant  new  heavens  and  to 
found  a  new  earth  was  likewise  commissioned  to  say  to  Zion,  Thou  art  still 
ray  people. 

V.  17.  This  may  be  considered  a  continuation  of  the  address  begun  at 
the  end  of  the  preceding  verse.  The  same  voice  which  there  said.  Thou 
art  my  people,  may  be  here  supposed  to  say,  Rouse  thyself!  rouse  thyself! 
Arise  Jerusalem  !  (^thou)  who  hast  drunk  at  the  hand  of  Jehovah  the  cup 
of  his  wrath ;  the  boxvl  of  the  cup  of  reeling  thou  hast  drunk,  thou  hast 
wrung  (or  sucked)  out,  i.  e.  drunk  its  very  dregs.  Some  of  the  rabbins 
give  the  sense  of  dregs  to  r:;2p  itself.  The  ancient  versions  either  overlook 
it  or  explain  it  to  mean  a  certain  kind  of  cup.  The  modern  writers  are  dis- 
posed to  regard  it  as  a  pleonastic  expression  similar  to  goblet-cup.  According 
to  its  probable  etymology,  as  traceable  in  Hebrew  and  Arabic,  the  word 
denotes  the  convex  surface  of  a  cup  or  bowl,  while  D"i3  is  properly  the  area 
or  space  within.  The  cup  is  of  course  put  for  its  contents,  a  natural  figure 
for  any  thing  administered  or  proftered  by  a  higher  power.  (Compare 
Jer.  25  :  15,  16.  49  :  12.  51  :  7.  Lam.  4  :  21.  Ob.  16.  Ezek.  23  :  34. 
Rev.  14  :  10.) 

V.  18.  There  is  no  guide  to  her  (or  no  one  leading  her)  of  all  the  sons 
she  has  brought  forth,  and  no  one  grasping  her  hand  of  all  the  sons  she 
has  brought  up.  From  addressing  Zion  in  the  second  person,  he  now 
proceeds  to  speak  of  her  in  the  third.  This  verse  is  not  so  much  descrip- 
tive of  unnatural  abandonment  as  it  is  of  weakness.  The  sense  is  not 
that  no  one  will,  but  that  no  one  can  protect  or  guide  her.  Some  inter- 
preters suppose  the  figure  of  a  drunken  person  to  be  still  continued.  J.  D. 
Michaelis  even  goes  so  far  as  to  translate  the  first  words  of  the  verse,  ]\o 
one  brings  her  a  drink  of  water.  This  is  no  doubt  founded  on  the  usual 
application  of  this  verb  to  the  watering  of  flocks,  from  which  is  deduced  the 
secondary  sense  of  guidance  in  general.     Hengstenberg  gives  to  it,  wherever 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  1 .  229 

it  occurs,  the  sense  of  fostering  or  nourishing.  (See  above,  on  eh.  40  :  11.) 
The  mother  and  tlie  sons,  i.  e.  the  people  collectively  and  individually,  are 
distinguished  only  by  a  figure  of  speech. 

V.  19.  Both  those  things  are  hef ailing  (or  about  to  befall)  thee  ;  who 
will  mourn  for  thee  1  Wasting  and  ruin,  famine  and  sivord ;  who  (but) 
I  will  comfort  thee  1  A  difficulty  here  is  the  mention  of  two  things  in  the 
first  clause,  followed  by  an  enumeration  oi  four  in  the  second.  Some  sup- 
pose the  two  things  to  refer  to  what  precedes,  others  to  wasting  and  ruin 
only.  Grotius  thinks  that  wasting  and  famine,  ruin  and  sword,  are  to  be 
combined  as  synonymes.  The  modern  writers  understand  the  second  phrase 
as  an  explanation  or  specification  of  the  first.  As  if  he  had  said,  wasting 
and.  ruin  (such  as  are  produced  by)  famine  and  the  sword.  The  last  words 
of  the  verse,  strictly  translated,  mean,  tvho  I  ivill  comfort  thee.  The 
Targum  limits  the  interrogation  to  the  first  word,  and  supposes  the  others 
to  contain  the  answer.  The  same  construction  is  given  by  Henderson — 
Whol  I  myself  ivill  comfort  thee.  A  much  greater  number  of  interpre- 
ters include  the  whole  in  the  interrogation,  and  either  give  the  verb  a  sub- 
junctive form,  who  am  I  that  J  should  comfort  thee  1  or  take  '•'o  as  an 
adverb,  hoiv  shall  I  comfort  thee  1  Hitzig  :  by  whom  (i.  e.  by  what 
example  of  sin)ilar  or  greater  suffering)  shall  I  comfort  thee  1  Still  a  differ- 
ent construction,  although  yielding  substantially  the  same  sense,  is  adopted 
above,  in  the  translation  of  the  verse.  The  general  meaning  evidently  is 
that  her  grief  was  beyond  the  reach  of  any  human  comforter. 

V.  20.  Thy  sons  were  faint  (or  helpless).  This  explains  why  they  did 
not  come  to  her  assistance. — They  lie  at  the  head  of  all  the  streets.  A 
conspicuous  place  is  evidently  meant,  but  whether  the  corners  or  the  higher 
part  of  an  uneven  street,  is  a  question  of  small  moment. — Like  a  wild  bull 
in  a  net,  i.  e.  utterly  unable  to  exert  their  strength.  The  Hebrew  word  5<'iR 
is  no  doubt  identical  with  the  ixn  of  Deut.  14  :  5,  and  therefore  must  denote 
an  animal.  The  ancient  versions  favour  its  identity  with  the  oryx,  a  species 
of  antelope  or  wild  goat.  Gesenius  gives  this  explanation  in  his  Lexicon,  but 
here  translates  it  stag  (Hirsch).  The  common  version  (wild  bull)  is  derived 
from  the  Targum,  and  is  sufficient  to  convey  the  writer's  meaning  by  sug- 
gesting the  idea  of  a  wild  animal  rendered  entirely  powerless.  The  extra- 
ordinary version  given  in  the  Septuagint,  asvrhov  rjfittcf&ov,  a  half-cooked 
btet,  owes  its  origin,  no  doubt,  to  some  coincidence  of  form  or  sound  between 
the  ohscm-e  Hebrew  word  and  an  Egyptian  one,  with  which  the  translator 
was  familiar.  The  cognate  form  in  Deuteronomy  is  rendered,  in  the  same 
version,  but  no  doubt  by  a  difierent  hand,  unvya.     The  precise  sense  of  the 


230  CHAPTERLI. 

Hebrew  phrase  appears  to  be,  like  an  oryx  of  net,  or  a  net-oryx,  \.  e.  an 
ensnared  one  ;  but  the  sense  may  be  best  expressed  in  English  by  supplying 
the  local  preposition  {in  a  net).  Knobel  supposes  a  particular  allusion  to 
the  faintness  produced  by  hunger,  and  refers  to  several  passages  in  Jeremiah, 
especially  to  Lam.  2:  19,  which  is  no  doubt  imitated  from  the  one  before 
us. — The  true  cause  of  their  lying  thus  is  given  in  the  last  clause.  Filled 
(i.  e.  drunk,  as  Ewald  explains  it)  with  the  wrath  of  Jehovah,  the  rebuke 
of  thy  God.  In  Hebrew  usage  nnri:  approaches  to  the  strong  sense  curse, 
and  is  so  translated  by  Gesenius.  The  expression  thy  God  is  emphatic,  and 
suo"o"ests  that  her  sufFerinss  proceeded  from  the  alienation  of  her  own  divine 
protector.  This  verse  is  incorrectly  applied  by  Vitringa  to  the  siege  of  the 
ancient  Jerusalem,  whereas  it  is  a  figurative  representation  of  the  helpless- 
ness of  Zion  or  the  Church  when  partially  forsaken  for  a  time  by  her  offend- 
ed Head. 

V.  21.  Therefore  pray  hear  this,  thou  suffering  one  and  drunken  but 
not  with  ivine.  The  antithesis  in  the  last  clause  is  to  be  completed  from 
the  context.  Not  with  wine,  but  with  the  wrath  of  God,  which  had  already 
been  described  as  a  cup  of  reeling  or  intoxication.  The  same  negative 
expression  is  employed  in  ch.  29:  9.  The  Targum  supplies  from  distress. 
Kimchi  inserts  the  tvrath  of  God.  Jarchi  supposes  an  ellipsis  of  something 
else  ("ins  "im),  and  thus  accounts  for  the  construct  form  of  the  participle. 
But  the  Michlal  Jophi  explains  it  more  correctly  as  an  instance  of  the  idio- 
matic use  of  the  construct  for  the  absolute  in  cases  where  a  very  intimate 
relation  is  to  be  expressed.  Vitringa  carries  out  his  favourite  method  of 
interpretation,  by  explaining  this  verse  as  addressed  specifically  to  the  ancient 
church,  when  recovering  from  the  persecutions  of  Antioclms  Epiphanes, — 
a  limitation  which  might  just  as  well  be  made  in  reference  to  any  of  the 
general  encouragements  of  true  believers  which  the  word  of  God  contains. 

V.  22.  Thus  saith  thy  Lord,  Jehovah,  and  thy  God — he  will  defend 
(or  avenge)  his  people — Behold,  I  have  taken  from  thy  hand  the  cup  of 
reeling  (or  intoxication),  the  bowl  of  the  cup  of  my  fury  ;  thou  shalt  not 
add  {continue  or  repeat)  to  drink  it  any  more  (or  again).  Even  Knobel 
is  compelled  to  admit  that  the  writer  has  reference  less  to  the  place  than  to 
the  people  of  Jerusalem,  and  even  to  this  only  as  the  representative  of  the 
entire  nation  ;  a  concession  which  goes  far  to  confirm  the  explanation  of 
the  "  Zion"  of  these  prophecies  which  has  been  already  given. — It  is  usual 
to  explain  ia?  S''~i"  as  a  relative  clause  {who  jjlcads  the  cause  of  his  people)  ; 
but  it  is  simpler,  and  at  the  same  time  more  in  accordance  with  the  genius 
of  the  language,  to  regard  it  as  a  brief  but  complete  parenthetical   proposi- 


CH  APT  ER    L  I.  231 

tlon.  The  same  character  is  often  ascribed  elsewhere  to  Jehovah.  (See 
ch.  1  :  17.  34:8.  41  :  11.  49:25.) — As  the  cup  was  the  cup  of  God's 
wrath,  not  of  man's,  so  God  himself  is  represented  as  withdrawing  it  from 
the  sufferer's  lips,  when  its  purpose  is  accomplished. 

V.  23.  And  put  it  into  the  hand  of  those  that  ajffiicted  thee,  that  said 
to  thy  soul,  Bow  down  and  we  will  (or  that  ive  may^  pass  over ;  and  thou 
didst  lay  thy  back  as  the  ground  and  as    the  street  for  the  2)<^ssengers. 
Ewald   and  Uinbreit  agree  with  Seeker  and   Lowth  in   reading   T("!?'i^   thy 
oppressors,  as  in  ch.  49  :  26,  on  the  alleged  authority  of  the  ancient  versions, 
which  would  be  wholly  insufficient  if  the  fact  were  so,  and  Kocher  has 
clearly  shown  that  it  is  not.     The  common  reading  is  confirmed,  moreover, 
by  the  use  of  •'^J'it^  in  Lam.  1  :  12. —  To  thy  soul  is  explained  by  Gesenius 
and  others  as  a  mere  periphrasis  for  to  thee.     Vitringa  supposes  the  expres- 
sion to  be  used  because  the  body  could  not  be  bowed  down  in  the  manner 
here  described  without  a  previous  bowing  of  the  mind.     But  the  true  expla- 
nation is  no  doubt  that  given  by  Hengstenberg  in  his  exposition  of  Ps.  3:3 
(Commentary,  I.   p.  59),  viz.  that  this  form  of  speech  always  implies  a 
strong  and  commonly  a  painful  afFontinn  of  th*^  mind  in  thft  object  of  address. 
Who  said  to  thy  soul  is  then  equivalent  to  saying,  who  distressed  thy  soul  hy 
saying.      The  last  clause  is  commonly  explained  as  a  proverbial  or  at  least 
a  metaphorical  description  of  extreme  humiliation,  although  history  affords 
instances  of  literal  humiliation  in  this  form.     Such  is  the  treatment  of  Vale- 
rian by  Sapor,  as  described  by  Lactantius  and  Aurelius  Victor;  with  which 
may  be  compared  the  conduct  of  Sesostris  to  his  royal  captives,  as  described 
by  Dlodorus,  and  that  of  Pope  Alexander  III.  to  the  Emperor  Frederic,  as 
recorded  by  the  Italian  historians.     For  scriptural  parallels  see  Josh.  10:  24 
and  Judg.  1  :7. — If  we  had  any  right  or  reason  to  restrict  this  prediction  to 
a  single  period  or  event,  the  most  obvious  would  be  the  humiliation  of  the 
Chaldees,  who  are  threatened  with  the  cup  of  God's  wrath  in  Jer.  25:26. 
Yet  Vitringa  sets  this  application  aside,  upon  the  ground  that  Israel  drank 
of  the  same  cup  afterwards,  and  understands  the  verse  of  the  deliverance  of 
the  Jews  from  their  JNIacedonian  oppressors  by  the  valour  of  the  Maccabees. 
To  the  obvious  objection   that  even   this   was   not  a   final   deliverance,  he 
ingeniously  replies  that  all   the  promises  to  Israel  extend  only  to  the  end  of 
the  old  dispensation, — an  assumption  which  confounds  the  Jewish  nation 
with  the  Israel  of  God,  the  Church,  or  chosen   people,  which  continued  to 
exist  under  every  change  of  dispensation  and  economy,  and,  notwithstanding 
all  its  fluctuations  and  vicissitudes,  shall  ultimately  be  for  ever  rescued  by 
the  same  hand  which  destroys  its  enemies.     This  is  the  simple  substance  of 
the  promise  in   the  verse  before  us,  which    includes   without   specifically 
signifying  all  that  has  been  thus  represented  as  its  meaning. 


232  CHAPTER    L  I  I 


CHAPTER    LI  I. 

IIowF.VF.R  low  the  natural  Israel  may  sink,  the  true  Church  shall 
become  more  "^loiious  than  ever,  being  freed  from  the  impurities  connected 
with  her  former  state,  v.  1.  This  is  described  as  a  captivity,  from  which 
she  is  exhorted  to  escape,  v.  2.  Her  emancipation  is  the  fruit  of  God's 
gratuitous  com|)assion,  v.  3.  As  a  nation  she  lias  suffered  long  enough, 
vs.  4,  5.  The  day  is  coming  when  the  Israel  of  God  shall  know  in  whom 
ihey  have  believed,  v.  6.  The  herald  of  the  new  dispensation  is  described 
as  already  visible  upon  the  mountains,  v.  7.  The  watchmen  of  Zion  hail 
their  romin:^  Lord,  v.  8.  The  very  ruins  of  Jerusalem  are  sunnnoned  to 
rejoice,  v.  9.  The  glorious  change  is  witnessed  by  the  whole  world,  v.  10. 
The  true  CInirch  or  hrnr-l  nf  Gnd  is  RKhorted  to  come  out  of  Jewry,  v.  IL 
This  exodus  is  likened  to  the  one  from  Egypt,  but  described  as  even  more 
auspicious,  v.  12,  Its  great  leader,  the  Messiah,  as  the  Servant  of  Jeho- 
vah, must  be  and  is  to  be  exalted,  v.  13.  And  this  exaltation  shall  bear 
due  proportion  to  the  humiliation  which  preceded  it,  vs.  14,  15. 

V.  1.  Awcike,  awake, put  on  thy  strength,  oh  Zion  !  Put  on  thy  gar- 
ments of  beauty,  oh  Jerusalem,  the  Holy  City !  For  no  more  shall  there 
add  (or  continue)  to  come  into  thee  an  uncircumcised  and  unclean  (^person). 
The  encouraging  assurances  of  the  foregoing  context  are  now  followed  by 
a  suinmons  similar  to  that  in  ch.  51  :  17,  but  in  form  approaching  nearer  to 
the  apostrophe  in  ch.  51  :  9. — Vitringa  objects  to  the  version  awake,  ox)  the 
grotmd  thai  it  was  not  a  state  of  sleep  from  which  she  v/as  to  rouse  herself. 
This  is  true  so  far  as  literal  slumber  is  concerned  ;  but  sleep  is  one  of  the 
most  natural  and  common  figures  for  a  despondent  lethargy.  The  essential 
idea  is,  no  doubt,  that  of  rousing  or  arising,  which  Gesenius  and  the  later 
Germans  express  by  an  interjection  meaning  up  (auf!  auf!).  The  same 
writers  give  to  i" ,  in  this  as  in  many  other  cases,  the  factitious  sense  of 
beauty,  glory,  simply  on  account  of  the  parallelism.  This  is  a  gratuitous 
weakening  of  the  sense  ;  for  beauty  and  beauty  is  certainly  much  less  than 
beauty  and  strength.  To  put  on  strength  is  a  perfectly  intelligible  figure 
for  resuming  strength  or  taking  courage,  and  is  therefore  entirely  appropriate 
in  this  connexion  ;  while  the  other  meaning  is  not  only  less  agreeable  to 
usage,  but  excluded   by  the  clear  analogy  of  ch.  51:9,  where  the  sense  of 


CHAPTER    LII.  233 

strength  Is  universally  admitted.  It  iniglit  be  objected  that  the  sense  is 
there  determined  by  the  use  of  the  word  arm,  if  the  meaning  strength  were 
a  rare  and  doubtful  one  ;  but  since  it  is  confessedly  the  usual  and  proper 
one,  the  case  referred  to  merely  confirms  the  strict  int(M'preiation,  which  is 
here  retained  by  Ewald  (^Macht). — That  the  city  is  here  addressed  only  as 
a  symbol  of  the  nation,  is  certain  from  the  next  verse  ;  so  that  Hitzig  is 
compelled  to  assume  two  different  ohjec-ts  of  address,  in  utter  violation  of 
analogy  and  taste. — Beautiful  garments  is  by  most  inteipreters  regarded  as 
a  general  expression  meaning  fine  clothes  or  holiday  di esses  ;  l)ut  some 
suppose  a  special  allusion  to  a  widow's  weeds  (Q.  Sam.  14  : '2)  or  to  prison- 
garments  (2  Kings  25  :  29).  It  is  a  bold  but  not  unnatural  idea  of  Knobel, 
that  the  Prophet  here  resumes  the  metaphor  of  ch.  49:  18,  where  Zion's 
children  are  compared  to  bridal  ornaments. —  The  Holy  City,  literally,  city 
of  holiness,  an  e[)ithet  before  applied  to  Zion  (ch.  45:  2),  and  denoting  her 
peculiar  consecration,  and  that  of  her  j)eople,  to  the  service  of  Jehovah. 
(Compare  Dan.  8:24.)  Henceforth  the  name  is  to  be  more  appropriate 
than  ever,  for  the  reason  given  in  the  hist  clause.  The  meaning  of  ^''^i'', 
when  followed  by  the  future,  is  precisely  equivalent  to  the  nioie  usual  con- 
struction with  the  infinitive,  of  which  we  have  an  instance  in  ch.  51  :  22. — 
Uncircumcisecl  is  an  expression  borrowed  from  the  ritual  law  and  signifying 
unclean.  That  it  is  not  here  used  in  its  strict  sense,  is  intimated  by  the 
addition  of  the  general  term  x^co .  The  restriction  of  these  epithets  to  the 
Babylonians  is  purely  arbitrary,  and  intended  to  meet  the  objection  that 
Jerusalem  was  not  free  from  heathen  intrusion  after  the  exile.  The  same 
motive  leads  Vitringa  to  explain  the  promise  as  addressed  to  the  Jewish 
church  after  its  deliverance  from  the  insults  and  oppressions  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes.  The  Jews  refer  it  to  a  future  period,  and  the  Germans  easily 
dispose  of  it  as  a  visionary  expectation  which  was  never  realized.  Thus 
Beck  explains  it  as  a  prophecy  that  all  mankind  should  be  converted  to 
Judaism,  which  is  a  virtual  concession  of  the  truth  of  the  interpretation 
above  given.  The  question  is  not  materially  varied  by  substituting  come 
against  for  come  into.  The  true  solution  is  the  one  above  suggested, 
namely,  that  the  words  contain  a  general  promise  of  exemption  from  the 
contaminating  presence  of  the  impure  and  unworthy,  as  a  part  of  the  bless- 
edness and  glory  promised  to  God's  people,  as  the  end  and  solace  of  their 
various  trials. 

V.  2.  Shake  thyself  from,  the  dust,  arise,  sit,  oh  Jerusalem  !  loose 
the  hands  of  thy  neck,  oh  captive  daughter  Zion  (or  of  Zion)  !  The  dust, 
from  which  she  is  to  free  herself  by  shaking  it  off,  is  either  that  in  which 
she  had  been  sitting  as  a  mourner  (eh.  .3:26.  47:  I.  Job  2:  I'-i),  or  that 
which,  in  token  of  her  grief,  she  had  sprinkled  on  her  head  (Job  2:  12). — 


234  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  II. 

Koppe  and   Hitzlg  make  ":?'J  a  noun,  meaning  captivity  or  captives  collect- 
ively, like  the  corresponding  feminine  f^;3ttj  in   the  other  clause.      Rosen- 
miiller's   objection,  that  "'^o  would  in   that  case  have  a  conjunctive  accent, 
is    declared    by    Ilitzig    to   be   groundless,   and   is   certainly  inconclusive. 
A  more  serious  objection  is  the  one  made  by  Gesenius,  that  "^n'r  is  always 
masculine,  and   would   not  therefore  agree  with   the   feminine   verb   ^^.'P . 
Hitzig's  reply,  that  ^'^^. ,  as  a  collective,  may  be  here  used  as  a  feminine,  is 
not  only  wholly  gratuitous  but  utterly  precluded  by  the  existence  of  a  dis- 
tinct  feminine  form  and  its  occurrence  in   this    very   sentence.     Because 
feminines  have  sometimes  a  collective  sense,  it  does  not  follow  that  a  mas- 
culine, when  used  collectively,  becomes  a  feminine,  least  of  all  when  a 
feminine  form  exists  already.     Among  the  writers  who  explain  it  as  a  verb, 
there  is  a  difference  of  judginent  with  respect  to  the  meaning  of  the  exhor- 
tation, sit !     The  common  English  version,  sit  down,  till  explained,  suggests 
an    idea   directly  opposite  to  that   intended.     Gesenius,  on    the  contrary, 
makes  it  mean  sit  up,  in  opposition  to  a  previous  recumbent  posture.     To 
this  it  may  be  objected,  that  the  verb  is  elsewhere  absolutely  used  in   the 
sense  of  sitting  down,  especially  in  reference  to  sitting  on  the  ground  as  a 
sign  of  grief;  and  also,  that  the  other  verb  does  not  merely  qualify  this,  but 
expresses  a  distinct  idea,  not  merely  that  of  rising  but  that  of  standing  up, 
which  is  inconsistent  with  an  exhortation  to  sit  up,  immediately  ensuing. 
Ewald,  Umbreit,  and  Knobel,  therefore,  agree  with  Vitringa  and  Lowth  in 
adopting  the  interpretation  of  the  Targum,  sit  upon  thy  throne,  from  which 
she  is  supposed  to  have  been   previously  cast  down. — The  textual  reading 
wriQrn  may  be  either  a  preterite  or  an  imperative.     In  the  former  case,  the 
Hithpael  must  have  a  passive  sense,  the  bands  of  thy  neck  are  loosed,  or 
have  loosed  themselves.     In  the  other  case,  the  words  may  be  considered  as 
addressed  to  the  bands  themselves  {be  loosed),  which  is  hardly  compatible, 
however,  with  the  use  of  the  second  person  in  thy  neck  ;  or  the  object  of 
address  may  be  the  captives,  which  is  equally  at  variance  with  the  following 
singular,  captive  daughter  ofZion.     The  marginal  reading  "'nnarn  preserves 
both  the  parallelisnj  and   the  syntax,  and   is  therefore  regarded  as  the  true 
text  by  Ewald  and  Knobel  with  the  older  writers.     The  latter,  followed  by 
Rosenmiiller,  suppose  an  ellipsis  of  the  preposition  from.     Tnus  the  English 
Version  :   loose  thyself  from  the  bands  of  thy  neck.     Gesenius  and   Ewald 
make  bands  the  object  of  the   verb,  which   they  explain,  not  as  a  strict 
reflexive,  but  a  modification  of  it,  corresponding  to  the  middle  voice  in  Greek. 
Loose  for  thyself  the  bands  of  thy  neck. — On   the  different  constructions  of 
the  phrase  'p'S-ra,  see  the  Earlier  Prophecies,   p.  8. — As  a  whole,   the 
verse  is  a  poetical  description  of  the  liberation  of  a  female  captive   from 
degrading  servitude,  designed  to  represent  the  complete  emancipation  of  the 
Church  from  tyranny  and  persecution. 


CHAPTERLII.  235 

V.  3.  For  thus  saith  Jehovah,  Ye  were  sold  for  nought,  and  not  for 
money  shall  ye  be  redeemed.  These  words  are  apparently  designed  to 
remove  two  difficulties  in  the  way  of  Israel's  deliverance,  a  physical  and  a 
moral  one.  The  essential  meaning  is,  that  it  might  be  effected  rightly  and 
easily.  As  Jehovah  had  received  no  price  for  them,  he  was  under  no  obli- 
gations to  renounce  his  right  to  them  ;  and  as  nothing  had  been  gained  by 
their  rejection,  so  nothing  would  be  lost  by  their  recovery.  The  only 
obscurity  arises  from  the  singular  nature  of  the  figure  under  which  the  truth 
is  here  presented,  by  the  transfer  of  exjiressions  borrowed  from  the  commer- 
cial intercourse  of  men  to  the  free  action  of  the  divine  sovereignty.  The 
verse,  as  explained  above,  agrees  exactly  with  the  terms  of  Ps.  44  :  13, 
notwithstanding  Hengstenberg's  denial  (Commentary,  II.  p.  391).  The 
reference  to  the  blood  of  Christ  as  infinitely  more  precious  than  silver  and 
gold,  would  here  be  wholly  out  of  place,  where  the  thing  asserted  is  that 
they  shall  be  redeemed  as  they  were  sold,  viz.  without  any  price  at  all,  not 
merely  without  silver  and  gold.  This  misconception  has  arisen  from  the 
use  of  analogous  expressions  in  the  New  Testament  in  application  to  a  far 
more  important  subject,  the  redemption  of  mankind  from  everlasting  ruin. 
The  reflexive  meaning  given  to  cnnr^rs  in  the  English  Version  (ye  have  sold 
yourselves),  is  not  sustained  by  usage  nor  required  by  the  context,  either 
here  or  in  Lev.  25 :  39,  47,  where  Gesenius  admits  it.  (See  above,  on  ch. 
50:  1.) 

V.  4.  For  thus  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah,  Into  Egypt  loent  down  my 
people  at  the  first  to  sojourn  there,  and  Assyria  oppressed  them  for  nothing. 
The  interpretation  of  this  verse  and  the  next  has  been  not  a  little  influenced 
by  the  assumption  of  one  or  more  strongly  marked  antitheses.  Thus  some 
writers  take  it  for  granted  that  the  Prophet  here  intended  to  contrast  the 
Egyptian  and  Assyrian  bondage.  They  accordingly  explain  the  verse  as 
meaning  that  the  first  introduction  of  Israel  into  Egypt  was  without  any  evil 
design  upon  the  part  of  the  Egyptians,  who  did  not  begin  to  oppress  them 
until  there  arose  a  king  who  knew  not  Joseph  (Ex.  1  :  8),  whereas  the 
Assyrian  deportation  of  Israel  was  from  the  beginning  a  high-handed  act  of 
tyranny.  Another  antithesis,  maintained  by  some  in  connexion  with  the 
one  already  mentioned,  and  by  others  in  the  place  of  it,  is  that  between 
nsiiJK'ia  at  the  first,  and  osxa  at  the  last.  A  third  hypothesis  supposes 
Egypt  and  Assyria  together  to  be  here  contrasted  with  the  Babylonian  tyranny 
described  in  the  next  verse.  But  even  here  there  is  a  question,  whether  the 
comparison  has  reference  merely  to  time,  and  the  Prophet  means  to  say  that 
what  Jehovah  had  done  he  would  do  again — or  whether  there  is  also  a  de- 
signed antithesis  between  the  former  oppressions  as  less  aggravated  and  the 
present  one  as  more  so.     Knobel  appears  to  exclude  the  supposition  of  a 


236  CHAPTERLII. 

contrast  altogether,  and  to  understand  the  passage  as  a  chronological  enu- 
meration of  events,  designed  to  show  how  much  had  been  endured  already 
as  a  reason  why  they  should  endure  no  more.  (Compare  ch.  40:  2.)  In 
ancient  times  they  were  oppressed  by  the  Egyptians,  at  a  later  period  by 
Assyria,  and  later  still  by  Babylonia,  whose  oppressions  are  supposed  to  be 
described  in  v.  5,  either  as  already  suffered,  or  as  an  object  of  prophetic 
foresight.  This  is  the  simplest  and  most  natural  interpretation,  and  is  very 
strongly  recommended  by  the  difficulty  of  defining  the  antithesis  intended 
on  the  other  supposition. — Of  the  phrase  02i<2  there  are  three  interpretations. 
Saadias,  Lowth,  and  Henderson  explain  it  as  a  particle  of  time,  the  opposite 
of  njiJxna.  The  objection  to  this  is  the  want  of  any  other  case  in  which 
the  noun  is  thus  applied  to  time,  together  with  its  frequent  use  to  describe 
nonentity  or  nothing.  It  is  no  doubt  true,  as  Havernick  alleges,  that  the 
word  may  as  well  denote  extremity  of  time  as  of  place  ;  but  even  the  latter 
application  is  confined  to  the  plural  in  the  frequent  formula  "j'lN  "'dex. 
The  argument  derived  from  the  parallelism  is  of  no  avail  ;  because,  as  we 
have  seen,  one  of  the  points  at  issue  is  the  question  whether  n3i:JX"i2  stands 
opposed  to  02X3  or  to  nns  in  the  next  verse.  JMost  writers  therefore  under- 
stand it  as  meaning  ybrno^/uV?^  or  without  cause,  i.  e.  unjustly,  or  as  Kimchi 
expresses  it,  prt;)'  f'ia .  Knobel,  however,  makes  it  strictly  syncjnymous 
with  nrn  in  v.  3,  and  understands  the  clause  to  mean  that  the  Assyrians 
,had  enslaved  Israel  gratuitously,  i.  e.  without  paying  any  price  for  him,  and 
therefore  had  no  right  to  him,  when  God  chose  to  reclaim  him, — which  is 
precisely  the  idea  expressed  in  the  foregoing  verse. —  The  explanation  of 
Assyria  as  meaning  or  including  Babylonia,  though  not  without  authority 
from  usage,  is  as  unnecessary  here  as  in  various  other  places  where  it  has 
been  proposed.  (See  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  125). — The  unsatisfactory 
nature  of  exegetical  conclusions  drawn  from  doubtful  premises  is  strongly 
illustrated  by  the  fact,  that  while  Gesenius  argues  from  this  verse  that  the 
writer  must  have  lived  long  after  the  Assyrian  bondage,  since  he  couples  it 
with  that  of  Egypt  as  a  thing  of  ancient  date,  Havernick  (Einleitung  H.  2, 
p.  187)  insists  that  it  must  have  been  written  in  the  days  of  Isaiah,  because 
it  contrasts  the  Egyptian  and  Assyrian  bondage  as  the  first  and  the  last 
which  Israel  as  a  nation  had  experienced.  The  chief  use  of  such  reasonings 
is  to  cancel  one  another.  Though  we  may  not  venture  to  rest  the  genuine- 
ness of  these  prophecies  on  such  a  basis,  we  may  cheerfully  accept  the 
assurance  thus  afforded  that  the  arguments  against  it  are  of  no  validity. 

V.  5.  And  now  what  is  there  to  me  here  (ivhat  have  I  here),  saith 
Jehovah,  that  my  people  is  taken  away  for  nothing,  its  rulers  howl,  saith 
Jehovah,  and  continually,  all  the  day,  my  name  is  blasphemed  1  Some 
understand  now  strictly  as  meaning  at  the  present  time,  in  opposition  to  the 


CHAPTER    LII.  237 

ancient  times  when  Israel  suffered  at  the  hands  of  Egypt  and  Assyria.  The 
same  antithesis  may  be  obtained  by  giving  now  a  modified  sense  so  as  to 
mean  m  the  present  case,  as  distinguished  from  the  two  aheady  mentioned. 
It  would  even  be  admissible  to  give  the  now  its  logical  sense  as  substantially 
meaning  since  these  things  ore  so,  although  such  a  departure  from  the  proper 
import  of  the  woid  is  by  no  means  necessary. — The  other  adverb,  here, 
admits  of  no  less  various  explanations.  Hiizig  and  some  older  writers  under- 
stand it  to  mean  heaven  as  the  customary  residence  of  God.  (1  Kings  8  :  30.) 
Some  suppose  it  to  mean  Babylon,  while  others,  with  a  bolder  departure 
from  the  strict  sense,  understand  it  as  equivalent  to  in  the  present  case, 
viz.  that  of  the  Babylonian  exile  ;  which,  however,  even  if  correct  in  sub- 
stance, is  rather  a  paraphrase  than  a  translation. — With  the  meaning  put 
upon  this  adverb  varies  the  interpretation  of  the  whole  phrase,  what  have  I 
here  1  If  here  mean  in  Babylon,  the  sense  would  seem  to  be,  what  else 
have  I  to  do  here  but  to  free  my  people  ?  If  it  mean  in  heaven,  then  the 
question  is,  what  is  there  to  detain  me  here  from  going  to  the  rescue  of  my 
people?  If  it  mean  in  the  present  case,  whether  this  be  referred  to  the 
Babylonish  exile  or  more  generally  understood,  the  best  explanation  of  the 
question  is  the  one  proposed  by  Knobel,  what  have  I  gained  in  this  case, 
any  more  than  in  the  others,  since  my  people  are  still  taken  from  me  with- 
out any  compensation  ?  But  Beck  supposes  it  to  mean,  how  much  more 
cause  have  1  to  interfere  in  this  case  than  in  any  of  the  others.  The  con- 
clusion implied,  though  not  expressed,  is  that  in  this,  as  in  the  other  instances 
referred  to,  a  regard  to  his  own  honour,  metaphorically  represented  as  his 
interest,  requires  that  he  should  interpose  for  the  deliverance  of  his  people. — 
The  next  clause  likewise  has  been  very  variously  explained.  The  most 
extraordinary  exposition  is  the  one  preferred  by  Aben  Ezra,  which  gives 
D'^baixj  the  same  sense  as  in  Num.  21  :  27,  and  explains  the  whole  clause 
thus  :  their  poets  howl,  i.  e.  their  songs,  instead  of  being  joyous,  have  become 
mere  lamentations.  This  ingenious  notion  is  revived  by  Luzzatto,  who 
refers  in  illustration  to  the  prophecy  of  Amos  (8;  3),  that  the  songs  of  the 
temple  shall  in  that  day  howl,  or,  as  the  English  Version  phrases  it,  be  bowl- 
ings. Among  the  vast  majority  of  writers  who  retain  the  common  meaning 
of  the  word  as  a  derivative  fiom  'bt_^  to  rule,  the  question  chiefly  in  dispute 
is  whether  it  denotes  the  native  rulers  of  the  Jews  themselves,  as  in  ch. 
28 :  14,  or  their  foreign  oppressors,  as  in  ch.  49  :  7.  Vitringa  and  Hitzig,  who 
prefer  the  former  supposition,  understand  the  clause  as  meaning  that  the 
chiefs,  who  represent  the  people,  howl  or  wail  in  their  distress.  (Compare 
Exod.  5:15,  21.)  Knobel  objects  to  this  interpretation,  that  the  context 
requires  a  description  not  of  their  distress  but  of  its  cause,  and  also  that  the 
Jews  had  no  chiefs  but  the  Babylonians  while  in  exile  ;  which  is  at  once 
historically  false,  because  the  internal  organization  of  the  people  seems  to 


238  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  I . 

have  continued  almost  without  change  through  all  their  revolutions  and 
vicissitudes,  and  wholly  irrelevant  if  true,  because  the  limitation  of  the  pas- 
sage to  the  exile  is  gratuitous  and  therefore  inadmissible.  Most  interpreters, 
however,  seem  disposed  to  understand  "."'^'W^  as  meaning  his  foreign  oppres- 
sors, notwithstanding  the  difficulty  then  attending  the  interpretation  of  the 
verb  '"5''^"'r!'^.  More  contempt  than  it  leally  deserves  has  been  expressed  by 
later  writers  for  Jerome's  straightforward  explanation,  they  shall  howl  when 
punished  for  their  tyranny  hereafter.  This  is,  to  say  the  least,  far  better 
than  to  derive  it  from  bbn,  or  to  read  '^"'^Y'^l  ^^'^'^  ^^^®  Targum  and  Jarchi, 
Houbigant  and  Lowth,  Michaelis  and  Doderlein,  Dathe  and  Eichhorn. 
The  causative  sense,  expressed  by  Kimchi  and  the  English  Version  (make 
them  to  Iwivl),  is  wholly  unsustained  by  Hebrew  usage.  The  favourite 
interpretation  with  the  latest  writers  is  essentially  the  same  proposed  by 
Kocher,  who  explains  the  Hebrew  verb  as  expressive  of  the  violent  and 
angry  domination  of  the  rulers  ;  upon  which  the  moderns  have  improved  by 
making  it  expressive  of  a  joyful  shout,  as  oP.o/.i'^w  is  employed  by  ^schylus, 
and  as  Lucan,  speaking  of  the  shout  of  victory,  uses  the  words,  laetis  ululare 
triumphis.  This  explanation  is  adopted  by  tiesenius  in  his  Lexicon,  although 
explicitly  rejected  in  his  Commentary,  as  not  sufficiently  sustained  by  usage. 
— The  only  difficulty  in  the  last  clause  has  relation  to  the  form  of  the  word 
•j'S-73  ,  which  Jarchi  explains  as  a  Hithpael  passive,  and  Kimchi  as  a  mixture 
of  the  Hithpael  and  Pual. — The  form  of  expression  in  this  last  clause  is 
copied  by  Ezekiel  (86:  20,  23),  but  applied  to  a  different  subject ;  and 
from  that  place,  rather  than  the  one  before  us,  the  Apostle  quotes  in  Rom. 
2  :   24. 

V.  6.  Therefore  (because  my  name  is  thus  blasphemed)  my  people  shall 
Jcnoiv  my  name  ;  therefore  in  that  day  (shall  they  know)  that  I  am  he  that 
said,  Behold  me  !  The  exact  sense  of  the  last  words  according  to  this 
construction  is,  '  I  am  he  that  spake  (or  promised)  a  Behold  me  ! '  This  is 
the  sense  given  by  Hitzig,  Ewald,  and  Knohel,  who  understand  the  clause 
as  meaning  that  in  that  day  (when  the  promise  is  fulfilled)  it  shall  be  known 
that  he  who  promised  to  be  with  them  and  deliver  them  was  God  himself. 
Gesenius  gives  a  somewhat  different  construction,  'they  shall  know  that  I 
who  spoke  to  them  am  present,'  or  in  other  words  '  that  I  who  promised  to 
be  present  have  fulfilled  my  promise.'  But  this  paraphrastical  interpretation 
of  ""Siil  is  by  no  means  so  natural  as  that  which  understands  it  as  the  very 
language  of  the  promise  itself.  To  know  the  name  of  God,  is  to  know  his 
nature  so  far  as  it  has  been  revealed  ;  and  in  this  case  more  specifically  it  is 
to  know  that  the  name  blasphemed  among  the  wicked  was  deserving  of  the 
highest  honour.  The  second  therefore  is  admitted  by  all  the  modem  writers 
to  be  pregnant  and  emphatic  ;  although  Lowth  esteemed  it  so  unmeaning 


CHAPTER    LII.  239 

and  superfluous,  tbat  he  expunged  it  from  the  text  on  the  authority  of  several 
ancient  versions,  which  were  much  more  hkely  to  omit  it  inadvertently  than 
all  the  manuscripts  to  introduce  it  without  reason  or  authority.  It  is  also 
commonly  agreed  that  "^3  means  that,  and  that  the  verb  shall  Icnoiv  must  be 
repeated  with  a  different  object.  It  might,  however,  be  considered  simpler 
and  more  natural  to  repeat  the  object  with  the  verb,  and  let  the  last  clause 
give  a  reason  for  the  first:  'therefore  in  that  day  shall  they  know  it  (i.  e. 
know  my  name),  because  I  am  he  that  said,  Behold  me  (or,  Lo  here  I  am)  !' 
The  English  Version  differs  from  all  the  constructions  which  have  now  been 
stated,  in  explaining  "'liH  as  a  mere  reiteration  of  what  goes  before  :  'they 
shall  know  in  that  day  that  I  am  he  that  doth  speak  ;  behold  it  is  I.'  But 
according  to  usage,  "'5.?^  ?  especially  when  standing  at  the  end  of  a  clause  or 
sentence,  does  not  merely  reiterate  the  subject  of  a  foregoing  verb,  but  con- 
stitutes a  new  proposition  ;  it  does  not  mean  lo  I,  or  lo  I  am,  but  lo  I  am 
here,  and  is  therefore  the  common  idiomatic  Hebrew  answer  to  a  call  by 
name 

V.  7.  How  timely  on  the  mountains  are  the  feet  of  one  bringing  glad 
tidings,  publishing  peace,  bringing  glad  tidings  of  good,  publishing  salva- 
tion, saying  to  Zion,  Thy  God  reigneth.     The  verb  'nJ*;  means  to  be  suita- 
ble, becoming,  opportune,  and  though   not  applied  to  time  in  either  of  the 
two  cases  where  it  occurs  elsewhere,  evidently  admits  of  such  an  applica- 
tion, especially  when  there  is  no  general   usage  to   forbid  it.     It  is  here 
recommended  by  the  context;  which  is  much   more  coherent  if  we  under- 
stand this  verse  as  intimating  that  the  help  appears  at  the  very  juncture 
when  it  is  most  needed,  than  if  we  take  it  as  a  mere  expression  of  delight. 
It  is  also  favoured  by  the  analogy  of  Nah.  2:1,  where  a  similar  connexion 
is  expressed  by  the  word  nsH  .     It  is  favoured  lastly  by  the  use  of  the  Greek 
word  coQaToi  in  Paul's  translation  of  the  verse  (Rom.  10  :  15),  of  which  mqu 
in  our  copies  of  the  Septuagint  is  probably  a  corruption.     This  Greek  word, 
both  from  etymology  and  usage,  most  explicitly  means  timely  or  seasonable, 
although  sometimes  employed  in  the  secondary  sense  of  beautiful  (Matt. 
23  :  27.  Acts  3  :  2),  like  the  Hebrew  ^ix:  (Cant.  1  :  10),  decorus  in  Latin, 
and  becoming  in  English.     The  mountains  meant  may  be  the  mountains 
round  Jerusalem,  or  the  word  may  be  more  indefinitely  understood  as  adding 
a  trait  to  the  prophetic  picture. — Hitzig  gratuitously  changes  the  form  of  the 
expression,  by  substituting  foot  and  messengers  for  feet  and  messenger.     The 
word  "i'>y2^  has  no  equivalent  in  English,  and  must  therefore  be  expressed 
by  a  periphrasis,  in  order  to  include  the  two  ideas  of  annunciation  and  the 
joyful  character  of  that  which  is  announced.     The  sense  is  perfectly  ex- 
pressed by  the  Greek  ivayy£Xi^6ftEvog :  but  our  derivatives,  evangelizing  and 
evangelist,  are  technical  not  popular  expressions,  and  would  not  convey  the 


'^40  CHAPTER    LI  I. 

nieaninir  to  an  ordinary  reader.  The  joyous  nature  of  the  tidings  brought  is 
still  more  definitely  iniiiualed  in  the  next  clause  by  the  addition  of  the  word 
good,  uliieh  is  not  explanatory  but  intensive.  The  peculiar  form  of  tlie 
original  is  marred  in  some  translations,  by  renrlering  the  firt  "i^!?*:  as  a  noun 
and  the  second  ais  a  vei  b  ;  whereas  in  Hebrew  there  are  two  participles,  both 
repeated.  The  explanmion  of  "'^aa^  as  a  collective  referring  to  the  prophets, 
or  the  messengers  from  Babylonia  to  Jerusalem,  is  perfectly  gratuitous.  The 
primary  applii-aiion  of  the  term  is  to  the  Messiah,  but  in  itself  it  is  indefinite  ; 
and  Paul  is  therefore  chargeable  with  no  misapplication  of  the  words  when 
he  applies  iIumu  to  tin;  preachers  of  the  gospel.  The  contents  of  the  mes- 
sage are  the  manifestation  of  llie  reign  of  God,  the  very  news  which  Christ 
and  his  forerunner  published  when  they  cried  saying,  The  kingdom  of  God 
is  at  hand. 

V.  8.  The  voice  of  thij  walchmen  !  They  raise  the  voice,  together 
ivill  they  shout ;  for  eye  to  eye  shall  they  see  in  Jehovah's  returning  to  Zion. 
Lowih  complains  that  none  of  the  ancient  versions  or  modern  interpreters 
liave  cleared  up  the  construction  of  the  first  clause  to  his  satisfaction,  or 
supplied  the  ellipsis  in  any  way  that  seems  to  him  easy  and  natuial.  He 
therefore  |)roposes  to  read  -=  for  ^"?  (<iU  thy  watchmen  lift  up  their  voice), 
which  he  says  perfectly  rectifies  the  sense  and  the  constiuction.  It  is  hard 
to  reconcile  with  Lowih's  reputation  for  refined  taste  the  preference  of  this 
prosaic  reading  (the  only  external  evidence  for  which  is  that  P  stands  on  a 
rasure  in  one  manuscript)  to  the  obvious  assumption  of  a  poetical  apostrophe 
or  exclamation,  which  has  commended  itself  to  all  later  writers,  and  had 
been  before  proposed  by  Vitringa.  There  is  no  need  even  of  supplying  is 
heard  with  Knobel,  sounds  with  Gesenius  in  his  Commentary,  or  hark  with 
the  same  writer  in  his  German  version.  The  exact  translation  is  not  only 
admissible,  but  more  expressive  than  any  other.  Gesenius  and  De  \\  ette, 
by  connecting  I'^n';;  with  the  word  before  it  {trhehen  die  Stinme  allzamal), 
not  only  violate  the  accents,  but  are  under  the  necessity  of  supplying  and 
before  the  next  verb. — This  is  one  of  the  cases  where  it  seems  most  allow- 
able to  look  upon  the  preterite  and  future  as  ecpiivalent  to  our  present ;  but 
according  to  the  general  rule  hitherto  adopted,  it  is  best  to  retain  the  original 
difference  of  form,  whenever,  as  in  this  case,  we  can  do  so  without  injuring 
the  sense.  Thus  urulerstood,  the  clause  would  seem  to  intimate  that  they 
should  have  still  further  cause  to  shout  hereafter  ;  they  have  already  raised 
the  voice,  and  ere  long  they  shall  all  shout  together.  Because  the  prophets 
are  elsewhere  represented  as  ivatchmen  on  the  walls  of  Zion  (ch.  56:  10. 
Jer.  6:  17.  Ez.  3 :  17.  33  :  2,  7),  most  interpreters  attach  that  meaning  to 
the  figure  licre  ;  but  the  restriction  is  unnecessary,  since  the  application  of 
a  metaphor  to  one  object  does  not  preclude  its  application  to  another,  and 


CHAPTER    LII.  24 1 

objectionable,  as  it  mars  the  unity  and  beauty  of  the  scene  presented,  which 
is  simply  that  of  a  messenger  of  good  news  drawing  near  to  a  walled  town, 
whose  watchmen  take  up  and  repeat  his  tidings  to  the   people  within. — 
Ewald  strangely  takes  the  last  clause  as  the  words  to  be  uttered   by  the 
watchmen,  and  explains  them  to  mean,  '  How  will  they  see  eye  to  eye  !' 
etc.     This  is  far  less  natural  than  the  usual  construction,  which  regards  the 
last  clause  as  the  Prophet's  explanation  of  the  joy  described  in  the  first. — 
The  phrase  eye  to  eye.  or,  as   Hiizig  and   De  Wette  have  it,  eye  in  eye, 
occurs  only  here  and  in  Num.  14  :  14.     The  sense  put  upon  it  in  the  Tar- 
gum  and  adopted  by  Gesenius  {luith  their  eyes),  though  not  erroneous,  is 
inadequate.     According  to   Vitringa,  it  denotes  with   both  eyes,  i.  e.  not 
imperfectly  or  dimly,  but  distinctly  ;  and   the  same  idea   is  expressed  by 
Symmachus  (oqi&cdfioq.avcog) .     The  same  essential  meaning  is  attached  to 
the  expression  by  Ewald,  but  with  a  distinct  intimation  of  local  proximity, 
the  phrase  being  properly  descriplive  of  two  persons  so  near  as  to  look  into 
each  other's  eyes.     The  phrases  face  to  face  (Ex.  33  :  11)  and  month  to 
mouth  (Num.  12:8)  are  kindred  and  analogous,  but  not  identical  with  that 
before  us. — The  verb  ^ixn-i  may  be  construed  either  with  T\'^t:i  or  with  an 
indefinite  subject,  they  (i.  e.  the  people  of  Jerusalem  or  men  in  general)  shall 
see. — Rosenmiiller  explains  3  before  nw  as  the  connective  which  the  verb  nx'n 
takes  after  it  when  it  means  to  see  with  pleasure  or  to  gaze  at  with  delitrht. 
The  same  construction  seems  to  be  implied  in  Ewald's  para])hrase  of  ^i<'i'' 
(^sich  weiden)  ;   but  it  seems  much  simpler  to  construe  the  verb  absolutely 
or  without  an  object  expressed  (they  shall  see,  i.  e.  look),  and  to  make  the 
::  a  particle  of  time,  as  it  usually  is  when  prefixed  to  the  infinitive. — The 
transitive  meaning  ascribed  to  -tii  in  this  and  many  other  places  has  been 
clearly  shown  by   Hengstenberg  (Pentateuch,  I.  pp.  104-106)  to  have  no 
foundation  either  in  etymology  or  usage,  and  to  be  wholly  inadmissible  even 
in  the  frequent  combination  r.^sui  nvj,  much  more  in  cases  like  the  present, 
where  the  proper  sense  is  not  only  appropriate  but  required   by  the  context 
and  the  analogy  of  other  places  in  which  the  reconciliation   between  God 
and  his  people  is  represented  as  a  return  after  a  long  absence.     (See  above,- 
on  ch.  40:  11.) — The  direct  construction  of  the  verb  of  motion  with  the 
noun  of  place  is  a  Hebrew  idiom  of  constant  occurrence  ;  so  that  it  is  not 
necessary  even  to  suppose  an  ellipsis  of  the  preposition. 

V.  9.  Burst  forth,  shout  together,  ruins  of  Jerusalem  !  For  Jehovah 
hath  comforted  his  people,  hath  redeemed  Jerusalem.  The  phrase  iis^  nss 
to  burst  forth  into  shouting,  is  a  favourite  expression  with  Isaiah  (see  above, 
ch.  14  :  7.  44  :  23.  49  :  13,  and  below,  ch.  54  :  1.  55  :  12)  ;  but  in  this 
case  the  qualifying  noun  is  exchanged  for  its  verbal  root, — a  combination 
which  occurs  elsewhere  only  in  Ps.  98  :  4.     As  use  is  never  used  in  any 

16 


042  CHAPTER    LII. 

other  connexion,  and  therefore  denotes  only  this  one  kind  of  bursting,  it 
may  be  considered  as  involving  the  idea  of  the  whole  phrase,  and  is  so 
translated  in  the  English  Version  (break  forth  into  joy),  while  Gesenius 
irives  the  same  sense  to  the  two  words,  and  translates  the  phrase  exactly 
like  tlie  usual  one,  np  niis. —  Together  may  either  mean  oil  of  you,  or  at 
the  same  time  with  the  watchmen  mentioned  in  v.  8.  Hitzig  even  goes  so 
iar  as  to  say  that  the  ruins  arc  here  called  upon  to  imitate  the  watchmen. 
Knobel  adds  that  the  ruins  had  particular  occasion  to  rejoice,  because  they 
were  to  be  transformed  into  a  splendid  city  (ch.  44  :  2G).  Such  appeals  to 
inanimate  objects  are  of  frequent  occurrence  in  Isaiah,  (See  above,  ch. 
44  :  23.  49  :  13,  and  below,  ch.  55  :  12.) — The  translation  of  the  verbs  in 
the  last  clause  as  presents  is  unnecessary  and  enfeebling,  as  it  takes  away 
the  strong  assurance  always  conveyed  by  the  praeteritum  propheticum. 
See  above,  on  ch.  49  :  13. 

V.  10.   Jehovah  hath  bared  his  holy  arm  to  the  eyes  of  all  the  nations, 
and  all  (he  ends  of  the  earth  have  seen  the  salvation  of  our  God.     The 
allusion  in  the  first  clause  is  to  the  ancient  military  practice  of  going  into 
battle  with  the  right  arm  and  shoulder  bare.     Thus  Porus  is  described  by 
Arrian    as    SflSiov  w/eof  sx^y  yvfxvov  sv  r;]  ;««/»; ;  Diana    by    Silius    Italicus, 
exscitos  avide  pugnae  nudata  lacertos  ;  Tydeus  by  Statins,  exscitare  hume- 
ros  nudnmque  lacessere  pugnam.     The  same   Hebrew  verb  is  used  in  the 
same  application  by  Ezekiel  (4  :  7).     The  baring  of  the  arm  may  either  be 
mentioned  as  a  preparation  for  the  conflict,  or  the  act  of  stretching  it  forth 
may  be  included,  as  Rosenmiiller  and  Gesenius  suppose.     The  bare  arm  is 
here  in  contrast  either  with  the  long  sleeves  of  the  female  dress,  or  with  the 
indolent  insertion  of  the  hand  in  the  bosom.      (Ps.  74  :  11.)     The  exertion 
of  God's  power  is  elsewhere  expressed  by  the  kindred  figure  of  a  great  hand 
(Ex.  14  :  30),  a  strong  hand  (Ez.  20  :  34),  or  a  hand  stretched  out  (Is. 
9 :  11).     The  act  here  described  is  the  same  that  is  described  in  ch.  51  :  9. 
The  comparison  of  Jehovah    to  a  warrior  occurs  above  in   ch.  42:  13. 
Jehovah's  arm  is  here  described  as  holy,  because,  as  Knobel  thinks,  his 
holiness  or  justice  is  exercised  in  punishing  the  wicked  ;  but  the  word  is 
rather  to  be  taken  in  its  wide  sense,  as  denoting  the  divine  perfection,  or 
whatever  distinguishes  between  God  and  man,  perhaps  with  special  refer- 
ence to  his  power,  as  that  by  which  his  deity  is  most  frequently  and  clearly 
manifested  to  his  creatures.     The  sense  of  sanctifying,  i.  e.  glorifying  arm, 
which  Rosenmiiller  suggests  as  possible,  is  much  less  natural  and  scarcely 
reconcilable  with  the  expression.     In  this  clause  Ewald  has  retained  the 
strict  translation  of   the   preterite  instead  of  the  enfeebling  present   form 
preferred  by  most  of  the  late  writers.     In   the  last  clause  he  adopts  the 
subjunctive  form,  so  that  all  nations  see,  which  is  substantially  correct,  as 


CHAPTERLII.  243 

i-iXV  introduces  the  effect  or  consequence  of  the  action  described  in  the  fore- 
^foing  clause.  Compare  tliis  clause  with  ch.  18:3.  33  :  13.  and  Ps.  98  :  3, 
where  it  is  repeated  word  for  word.  Another  coincidence  between  this 
passage  of  Isaiah  and  that  Psalm  has  been  already  pointed  out  in  expound- 
ing the  forefroinff  verse. 

V.  11.  Away  !  aivay  !  go  out  from  thence  !  the  unclean  touch  not ! 
come  out  from  the  midst  of  her  !  be  clean  (or  cleanse  yourselves)  ye  armour- 
bearers  of  Jehovah  !  The  first  word  in  Hebrew  is  a  verb,  and  literally 
means  depart ;  but  there  is  something  peculiarly  expressive  in  Gesenius's 
translation  of  it  by  an  adverb.  The  analogy  of  ch.  48 :  20  seems  to  show 
that  the  Prophet  had  the  departure  from  Babylon  in  view  ;  but  the  omission 
of  the  name  here,  and  of  any  allusion  to  that  subject  in  the  context,  forbids 
the  restriction  of  the  words  any  further  than  the  author  has  himself  restricted 
them.  The  idea  that  this  high-wrought  and  impassioned  composition  has 
reference  merely  to  the  literal  migration  of  the  captive  Jews,  says  but  little 
for  the  taste  of  those  who  entertain  it.  The  whole  analogy  of  language  and 
especially  of  poetical  composition  shows  that  Babylon  is  no  more  the  exclu- 
sive object  of  the  writer's  contemplation  than  the  local  Zion  and  the  literal 
Jerusalem  in  many  of  the  places  where  those  names  are  mentioned.  Like 
other  great  historical  events,  particularly  such  as  may  be  looked  upon  as 
critical  conjunctures,  the  deliverance  becomes  a  type,  not  only  to  the  pro- 
phet, but  to  the  poet  and  historian,  not  by  any  arbitrary  process,  but  by  a 
spontaneous  association  of  ideas.  As  some  names,  even  in  our  own  day, 
iiave  acquired  a  generic  meaning  and  become  descriptive  of  a  whole  class 
of  events,  so  in  the  earliest  authentic  history,  the  Flood,  the  Fall  of  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah',  the  Exodus,  the  Babylonish  Exile,  are  continually  used  as 
symbols  of  divine  interposition  both  in  wrath  and  mercy.  There  is  no 
inconsistency  whatever,  therefore,  in  admitting  that  the  Prophet  lias  the 
exodus  from  Babylon  in  view,  and  yet  maintaining  that  his  language  has  a 
far  more  extensive  scope.  The  error  of  those  Christian  writers  who  adopt 
this  confined  hypothesis  is  not  so  obvious  in  their  own  interpretations  as  it  is 
in  those  which  have  been  raised  upon  the  same  base  by  the  German  neolo- 
gists,  who,  not  content  with  this  limitation  of  the  meaning,  sneer  at  the 
contracted  Jewish  spirit  which  the  writer  here  betrays,  by  insisting  on  the 
old  Levitical  distinctions  and  denouncing  all  communion  with  the  gentiles 
as  pollution.  In  order  to  maintain  this  unworthy  view  of  the  writer's  mean- 
ing, they  explain  the  exhortation  in  the  last  clause  as  requiring  ceremonial 
ablutions,  and  adopt  Jarchi's  groundless  and  absurd  interpretation  of  x^:j  as 
referring  exclusively  to  persons,  with  allusion  to  the  ■|"?.5<f]"'';^i5  t"5<'a^  of  Ezra 
6:21.  This  restriction  of  the  terms  is  so  unreasonable  and  unfair,  that 
Ewald  and   Knobel,  though   belonging  to  the  same  school,  both  explain 


244  CHAPTER    LII. 

X^"J  as  a  neutin-  (^Vnreincs),  that  which  is  unclean.     It  would  indeed   be 
impossible  to  fianie  a  more  general  dehortation  or  dissuasion  from  religious 
and  moral  impurity,  and  thousands  of  intelligent  readers  have  so  understood 
the  words,  without  detecting  in  them  those  "  angstliche  pedantische  Grund- 
satze"  since  brought  to  light  by  a  mode  of  criticism  which,  even  in  a  mere 
aesthetic  point  of  view,  deserves  to  be  characterized  as  eminently  aiigstUch 
^nd  pedantisch.     The  same  spirit  shows  itself  in  the  exposition  of  the  closing 
words  of  this  verse  by  the  same  class  of  writers.     Not  content  with  identify- 
in"-  the  nin-;  "ibs  with  the  13'^'p  "'^s  of  Num.  4  :  15.   1  Chron.  9:29,  an 
assumption  not  entirely  devoid  of  probability,  they  make  this  an  address  to 
the  Priests  and  Levites,  the  official  bearers  of  these  vessels,  and  explain  it  as 
implying  a  hope  that  the  sacred  utensils  taken  by  Nebuchadnezzar  from  the 
temple  (2  Kings  25  :  14,  15.  Dan.  5  :  1)  would  be  restored  by  Cyrus,  as 
they  afterwards  were.     (Ezra  1  :7-ll.)     And  this  anticipated  restitution 
is  the  threat  theme  of  the  grand  yet  brilliant  passage  now  before  us,  in  the 
eyes  of  those  very  critics  who  have  gone  to  an  extreme  in  holding  up  Isaiah's 
baldest  prose  as  unmixed  poetry  !     They  reject  of  course  the  sense  which 
Rosenmiiller,  following  some  older  writers,  puts  upon  the  closing  words  as 
meaning  the  armour-bearers  of  Jehovah.     This  would  not  be  Jewish  and 
Levitical  enough  to  serve  their  purpose  of  really  degrading  what  they  aflect 
to  magnify  '  with  faint  praise.'     Yet  this  sense  is  not  only  in  the  highest 
degree  suitable  to  the  idea  of  a  solemn  march,  but  strongly  recommended  by 
the  fact  that  f^s  ^V.^  in  historical   prose  is  the  appropriated   title  of  an 
armour-bearer.     (See  1  Sam.  14  :  1,  6,  7.  16  :  21.)      At  the  same  time  the 
mention  of  the  sacred  vessels  would  scarcely  be  omitted  in  the  description 
of  this  new  exodus.     Both  explanations  may  be  blended  without  any  viola- 
tion of  usage,  and  with  great  advantage  to  the  beauty  of  the  passage,  by 
supposing  an  allusion  to  the  mixture  of  the  martial  and  the  sacerdotal  in  the 
whole  oro-anization  of  the  host  of  Israel  during  the  journey  through  the 
wilderness.     Not  even   in   the   crusades   were   the  priest   and   the  soldier 
broucrht  so  near  together,  and  so  mingled,  not  to  say  identified,  as  in  the 
lono-  march  of  the  chosen  people  from  the  Red  Sea  to  the  Jordan.     By 
applying  this  key  to  the  case  before  us,  we  obtain  the  grand  though  blended 
imaf^e  of  a  march  and  a  procession,  an  army  and  a  church,  a  'sacramental 
host'  bearing  the  sacred  vessels  not  as  Priests  and  Levites  merely,  but  as  the 
armour-hearers  of  Jehovah,  the  weapons  of  whose  warfare,  though  not  car- 
nal, are  mighty  to  the  pulling  down  of  strong  holds.      (2   Cor.  10:4.) 
With  this  comprehensive  exposition  of  the  clause  agrees  the  clear  and  settled 
usage  of  the  word  c^^s  in  the  wide  sense  of  imphments,  including  weapons 
on  the  one  hand  and  vessels  on  the  other.     (See  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p. 
249,) — The  application  of  the  terms  of  this  verse  by  John  to  the  spiritual 
Babylon  (Rev.  18  :  4),  so  far  from  standing  in  the  way  of  the  enlarged 


CHAPTERLII.  245 

interpretation  above  given,  really  confirms  it  by  showing  that  the  language 
of  the  prophecy  is  suited  to  express  far  more  than  the  literal  exodus  of  Israel 
from  Babylon. 

V.  12.  For  not  in  haste  shall  ye  go  out,  and  in  jiight  ye  shall  not 
depart ;  for  going  before  you  (is)  Jehovah,  and  bringing  up  your  rear 
the  God  of  Israel.  This  verse  is  crowded  with  allusions  to  the  earlier 
history  of  Israel,  some  of  which  consist  in  the  adaptation  of  expressions  with 
which  the  Hebrew  reader  was  familiar,  but  which  must  of  course  be  lost  in 
a  translation.  Thus  the  hasty  departure  out  of  Egypt  is  not  only  recorded 
as  a  fact  in  the  Mosaic  history  (Ex.  11  :  1.  12  :  33,  39),  but  designated  by 
the  very  term  here  used  "iiTsn  (Ex.  12  :  11.  Deut.  16  :  3),  meaning  terrified 
and  sudden  flight.  So  also  T\^^  and  ^&5<^  are  military  terms  familiar  to  the 
readers  of  the  ancient  books.  (See  Num.  10  :  25.  Josh.  6  :  9,  13.)  There 
is  likewise  an  obvious  allusion  to  the  cloudy  pillar  going  sometimes  before 
and  sometimes  behind  the  host  (Ex.  14  :  19,  20),  and  ])ossibly  to  Moses' 
poetical  description  of  Jehovah  as  encompassing  Israel  with  his  protection 
(Deut.  32  :  10).  These  minute  resemblances  are  rendered  still  more  strik- 
ing by  the  distinction  which  the  Prophet  makes  between  the  two  events. 
The  former  exodus  was  hurried  and  disorderly  ;  the  one  here  promised  shall 
be  solemn  and  deliberate.  How  far  the  exquisite  poetical  beauty  of  the 
passage  is  appreciated  by  some  modern  critics,  may  be  gathered  from  the 
fact  that  Rosenmiiller  quotes  without  dissent  the  ridiculous  remark  of 
Schuster,  that  the  verse  has  reference  to  the  dangers  of  the  desert  between 
Babylonia  and  Judea  (Ezra  8  :  22,  31),  and  the  still  more  curious  fact  that 
Knobel  understands  it  as  assigning  a  reason  why  they  need  not  neglect  their 
Levitical  ablutions  before  setting  out  ;  while  Hitzig  infers  from  this  last 
verse  that  the  purification  enjoined  in  the  one  before  it  was  '^  etivas  Zeit- 
rauhcndes,"  or  something  that  required  time  for  its  performance.  Such 
aesthetics,  if  applied  to  any  of  the  master-works  of  classical  genius,  would 
be  laughed  to  scorn  ;  but  even  the  transcendent  merit  of  the  passage  now 
before  us,  simply  considered  as  a  piece  of  composition,  cannot  wash  out  the 
offensive  stain  of  Judaismus,  or  enable  certain  critics  to  forget  or  even  to 
forgive  its  being  Scripture.  The  true  connexion  of  the  verse  with  that 
before  it  must  be  obvious  to  every  unsophisticated  reader.  Tlieyor,  as  in 
many  other  cases,  has  relation  to  an  intermediate  thought  which  may  be 
easily  supplied  though  not  expressed.  Or  rather,  it  has  reference  to  the 
promise,  implied  in  the  preceding  exhortation,  of  protection  and  security. 
To  many  thousands  both  of  learned  and  unlearned  readers,  this  connexion 
has  been  obvious  for  ages  ;  whereas  not  more  than  two  or  three,  we  may 
venture  to  believe,  ever  dreamed  that  this  magnificent  description  of  Jeho- 
vah's presence  with  his  people  was  intended  to  assure  the  Jewish  exiles  that 


246  CHAPTERLII. 

before  leaving  Babylon  they  would  have  time  enough  to  wash  themselves 
at  leisure  ! — From  this  verse,  taken  in  connexion  with  the  one  before  it,  we 
may  derive  a  confirmation  of  our  previous  conclusions,  first  that  tiie  image 
there  presented  is  a  military  no  less  than  a  priestly  one  ;  and  secondly  that 
this  whole  passage  has  a  wider  scope  and  higher  theme  than  the  deliverance 
from  Babylon,  because  the  latter  is  no  more  vividly  exhibited  to  view  than 
the  deliverance  from  Egypt  ;  and  if  this  is  a  mere  emblem,  so  may  that  be, 
nay  it  must  be,  when  we  add  to  the  consideration  just  presented,  the  result 
of  the  inductive  process  hitherto  pursued  in  the  interpretation  of  these  pro- 
phecies, viz.  that  the  deliverance  of  Israel  from  exile  does  not  coiistiuue  the 
theme  of  the  predictions,  but  is  simply  one  remarkable  historico-propheiical 
example  which  the  Prophet  cites  in  illustration  of  his  general  teachings  as 
to  the  principle  and  mode  of  the  divine  administration,  and  his  special  pre- 
dictions of  a  great  and  glorious  change  to  be  connected  with  the  abrogation 
of  the  old  economy. 

V.  13.  Behold,  my  servant  shall  do  wisely,  (and  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence) shall  rise  and  be  exalted  and  high  exceedingly.  The  parenthesis 
introduced  to  show  the  true  relation  of  the  clauses  serves  at  the  same  time 
to  preclude  the  necessity  of  giving  ^"'S'^l  the  doubtful  and  secondary  sense  of 
prospering,  as  most  modern  writers  do.  The  objection  to  this  interpretation 
is  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  P'lS  and  npr'iii ,  which  it  is  the  fashion  now  to 
render  victory,  salvation,  or  the  like.  The  parallel  expressions  in  the  pre- 
sent case  are  not  synonymous  but  simply  correlative,  the  mutual  relation 
being  that  of  cause  and  effect.  He  shall  be  exalted  because  he  shall  act 
wisely,  in  the  highest  sense,  i.  e.  shall  use  the  best  means  for  the  attainment 
of  the  highest  end.  This  kind  of  wisdom  involves  prosperity,  not  merely 
as  a  possible  result,  but  as  a  necessary  consequence.  We  have  no  right, 
however,  to  substitute  the  one  for  the  other,  or  to  merge  the  primary  idea  in 
its  derivative.  Hengstenberg  undertakes  to  blend  both  senses  by  translating 
the  verb  he  shall  rule  well,  i.  e.  both  wisely  and  successfully.  But  to  this 
there  are  two  objections  :  first,  that  it  introduces  an  idea  (that  of  ruling) 
which  is  not  expressed  at  all  in  the  original  ;  and  then,  that  it  confounds 
two  things  which  in  the  original  are  kept  distinct,  the  antecedent  and  the 
consequent,  wisdom  and  prosperity.  The  latter  has  the  less  claim  to  be 
forced  into  the  first  clause,  because  in  the  last  it  is  so  fully  and  strongly  ex- 
pressed, by  combining,  as  Hengstenberg  himself  well  says,  all  the  Hebrew 
verbs  that  denote  exaltation  and  then  adding  the  intensive  adverb.  The 
version  of  the  Septuagint  (avvi^Gti)  and  the  Vulgate  (intelliget)  is  only  de- 
fective because  it  makes  the  verb  denote  the  possession  of  intelligence,  and 
not  its  active  exercise,  which  is  required  by  the  Hiphil  form  and  by  the 
connexion,  as  well  here  as  in  the  parallel  passage,  Jer.  23  :  5.     (Compare 


CHAPTERLII.  247 

1  Kings  2  :  3.) — Connected  with  this  verse  there  are  two  exegetical  ques- 
tions which  are  famous  as  the  suhject  of  dispute  among  interpreters.  The 
first  and  least  important  has  respect  to  the  division  and  arrangement  of  the 
text,  viz.  whether  this  verse  is  to  be  connected  with  what  goes  before,  or 
separated  from  it  and  regarded  as  the  introduction  of  a  new  subject.  The 
former  method  is  adopted  in  the  older  versions  and  in  the  masoretic  Hebrew 
text.  The  latter,  according  to  Procopius  and  others,  was  pursued  in  the 
ancient  distribution  of  the  book,  with  which  the  Fathers  were  familiar,  and 
has  been  adopted  in  our  own  day  by  most  writers  on  Isaiah.  A  particular 
exegetical  motive  may  be  easily  detected  in  some  cases  for  preferring  the 
one  or  the  other  of  these  methods.  Thus  Abarbenel  is  naturally  led  to 
sever  these  three  verses  (13-15)  from  what  follows,  by  a  wish  to  establish 
his  peculiar  hypothesis  that  the  Messiah  is  the  subject  of  these  verses,  but 
not  of  the  next  chapter.  On  the  other  hand,  those  writers  who  restrict  the 
foregoing  context  to  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  exile  have  a  strong 
inducement  to  make  this  the  beginning  of  a  new  discourse  upon  another 
subject,  as  the  best  means  of  disguising  the  unnatural  and  violent  transition 
which  their  hypothesis  compels  them  to  assume.  But  to  this  statement 
there  are  certainly  exceptions.  Thus  the  usual  division  is  retained  by  Hit- 
zig  notwithstanding  his  adherence  to  the  Babylonian  theory,  while  Ewald, 
who  adopts  the  other  method,  admits  that  the  fifty-third  chapter  begins  in 
an  entirely  new  tone.  The  ease  with  which  arbitrary  arrangements  of  the 
text  may  be  multiplied  derives  some  illustration  from  Hendewerk's  assertion 
that  ch.  5-2  :  7  to  54  :  17  is  a  distinct  prophecy,  consisting  of  three  parallel 
parts,  ch.  52  :  7-15,  ch.  53  :  1-12,  ch.  54  :  1-17,  so  that  the  favourite 
modern  separation  of  ch.  52  :  13  to  53  :  12  from  the  context  as  a  separate 
discourse  is  not  only  arbitrary  but  a  '  mutilation  of  the  oracle.'  Common 
to  all  these  arrangements  is  the  radical  error  of  supposing  that  the  book 
is  susceptible  of  distribution  into  detached  and  independent  parts, — a  notion 
which,  as  we  have  seen  already,  is  not  only  theoretically  groundless, 
but  practically  hurtful  in  a  high  degree  to  the  sound  interpretation  of  these 
prophecies.  What  seems  to  be  gained,  in  such  cases,  by  combining  thinfrs 
which  ought  to  go  togetlier,  is  more  than  outweighed  by  the  disadvantage  of 
separating  others  which  are  no  less  closely  connected.  The  only  satisfac- 
tory method,  as  we  have  already  seen,  is  to  regard  the  whole  as  a  continu- 
ous composition,  and  to  recognise  the  usual  division  into  chapters,  simplv 
because  it  is  familiar  and  on  the  whole  convenient,  although  sometimes  very 
injudicious  and  erroneous.  According  to  this  view  of  the  matter,  the  precise 
distribution  of  the  chapters  is  of  no  more  importance  than  that  of  the  para- 
graphs in  any  modern  book,  which  may  sometimes  facilitate  and  sometimes 
hinder  its  convenient  perusal,  but  can  never  be  regarded  as  authoritative  in 
determining   the  sense.     In  the  case  immediately  before  us,  it  is  proper  to 


248  CHAPTERLII. 

resist  the  violent  division  of  the  chapter;  because  when  read  In  its  natural 
connexion,  it  siiows  how  easy  the  transition  was  from  the  foregoing  promise 
of  deliverance  to  the  description  of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  as  the  leader 
of  the  grand  march  just  described,  and  confirms  our  previous  conclusions  as 
to  the  exalted  meaning  of  the  promises  in  question,  and  against  a  forced 
restriction  of  tiicni  to  the  Babylonish  exile.  At  the  same  time  it  is  equally 
important  that  tin;  Inilmate  connexion  of  these  verses  with  the  following 
chapter  should  be  fully  recognised,  in  order  that  the  Servant  of  the  Lord, 
whose  huiuiliation  and  exaltation  are  here  mentioned,  may  be  identified  with 
that  mysterious  per,-on  whose  expiatory  sufferings  and  spiritual  triumphs  form 
the  great  theme  of  tlie  subsequent  context.  To  the  general  agreement 
among  Jews  and  Christians  as  to  this  identity,  the  forced  hypothesis  already 
quoted  from  Abarbenel  may  be  regarded  as  the  sole  exception.  It  follows, 
therefore,  that  the  meaning  of  the  whole  passage,  to  the  end  of  the  fifty-third 
chapter,  turns  upon  the  question,  Who  is  meant  by  "''nns  (my  servant)  in  the 
verse  before  us?  An  individual  or  a  collective  body?  If  the  latter,  is  it 
Israel  as  a  whole,  or  its  better  portion,  or  the  Prophets,  or  the  Priesthood  ? 
If  the  former,  is  it  Moses,  Abraham,  Uzziah,  Joslah,  Jeremiah,  Cyrus,  an 
anonymous  prophet,  the  author  himself,  or  the  Messiah  ?  This  is  the  other 
exegetical  question  which  has  been  referred  to,  as  connected  with  this  verse 
and  materially  affecting  the  interpretation  of  the  whole  passage.  The  answer 
to  this  question,  which  at  once  suggests  itself  as  the  result  of  all  our  previous 
inquiries,  is  that  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  here,  as  in  ch.  42  :  1—6  and  ch. 
49  :  1—9,  is  the  Messiah,  but  presented  ratlier  in  his  own  personality  than 
in  conjunction  with  his  people.  According  to  the  rule  ah-eady  stated  (see 
above,  p.  50),  the  idea  of  the  Body  here  recedes,  and  that  of  the  Head 
becomes  exclusively  conspicuous  ;  because,  as  we  shall  see  below,  the  Ser- 
vant of  Jehovah  is  exhibited,  not  merely  as  a  teacher  or  a  ruler,  but  as  an 
expiatory  sacrifice.  That  this  application  of  the  verse  and  the  whole  pas- 
sage to  the  Messiah  was  held  by  the  oldest  school  of  Jewish  interpreters, 
appears  from  the  Targum  of  Jonathan,  who  here  has  my  Servant  the  Mes- 
siah, and  is  admitted  by  Aben  Ezra,  Jarchl,  Abarbenel,  and  other  Jews,  who 
have  themselves  abandoned  this  opinion  because  it  would  constrain  them  to 
acknowledge  Christ  as  the  Messiah  of  their  Scriptures.  Detailed  proofs 
from  the  ancient  Jewish  books  themselves  are  given  by  Hengstenberg  in  his 
Christology  (Vol.  I.  pp.  292-294).  Gesenius,  too,  explicitly  admits  that  the 
later  Jews  were  no  doubt  led  to  give  up  the  old  interpretation  of  the  pas- 
sage by  polemic  opposition  to  the  Christians.  (Commentary  II.  p.  161.) 
The  same  interpretation  was  maintained,  almost  without  exception,  in  the 
Christian  church,  till  near  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  when  it  was 
abandoned  by  the  German  theologians  along  with  the  doctrines  of  atonement 
and  prophetic  inspiration.     Even  in  Germany,  however,  it  has  always  had 


CHAPTER    LII.  249 

its  zealous  adherents,  and  in  our  own  day  some  of  its  most  able,  learned, 
and  successful  advocates.  In  its  favour  may  be  urged,  besides  the  tradition 
of  tiie  synagogue  and  church,  the  analogy  of  the  other  places  where  the 
Servant  of  Jehovah  is  mentioned,  the  wonderful  agreement  of  the  terms  of 
the  prediction  with  the  character  and  history  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  express 
application  of  the  passage  to  him  by  himself  and  his  inspired  apostles,  who 
appear  to  have  assumed  it  as  the  basis  of  their  doctrine  with  respect  to  the 
atonement,  and  to  have  quoted  it  comparatively  seldom  only  because  they 
had  it  constantly  in  view,  as  appears  from  their  numerous  allusions  to  it,  and 
the  perfect  agreement  of  their  teachings  with  it ;  so  that  even  Gesenius,  while 
in  one  place  he  argues  from  their  silence  that  they  did  not  find  the  doctrine 
of  atonement  in  the  passage,  says  expressly  in  another,  with  a  strange  but 
gratifying  inconsistency,  that  most  Hebrew  readers,  being  already  familiar  with 
the  notions  of  sacrifice  and  substitution,  must  of  necessity  have  so  explained 
the  place,  and  that  undoubtedly  the  apostolic  doctrine  as  to  Christ's  expia- 
tory death  rests  in  a  great  measure  upon  this  foundation.  (Comm.  II.  p. 
191.)  The  detailed  proofs  of  the  Messianic  exposition  will  be  given  in  the 
course  of  the  interpretation  and  compared  with  the  other  hypotheses  main- 
tained by  Jews  and  Christians,  which  will  therefore  only  be  eimmerated 
here  in  order  that  the  reader  may  recall  them  for  the  purpose  of  comparison. 
The  individual  subjects  which  have  been  assumed  besides  the  Messiah,  are 
Josiah  by  Abarbenel,  Jeremiah  by  Grotius,  Uzziah  by  Augusti,  Hezekiah 
by  Bahrdt,  Isaiah  by  Staudlin,  and  (according  to  some)  Moses  and  the 
Rabbi  Akiba  by  a  tradition  quoted  in  the  Talmud,  although  Hengstenberg 
supposes  that  these  are  mentioned  only  as  examples  or  representatives  of  a 
whole  class.  An  anonymous  German  writer  understands  by  the  Servant  of 
this  verse  an  unknown  prophet  who  suffered  martyrdom  during  the  exile  ! 
Another  anonymous  writer  of  the  same  country  applies  the  name  as  a  collec- 
tive to  the  Maccabees  ;  another  to  the  nobles  carried  off  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 
or  to  their  descendants  w  ho  returned  ;  Bolten  applies  it  in  like  manner  to  the 
house  or  family  of  David.  Another  nameless  German  understands  by  the 
Servant  of  Jehovah  the  priesthood  as  a  class  or  body.  This  is  near  akin 
to  Rosenmiiller's  early  doctrine  that  it  means  the  prophets,  which  was  after- 
wards abandoned  by  its  author,  but  renewed  by  Gesenius  in  his  Commen- 
tary, and  by  De  Wette  and  Winer,  while  Umbreit  attempts  to  blend  it  with 
the  Messianic  exposition  by  supposing  the  Messiah  to  be  set  forth  as  the 
greatest  of  the  ])ropliets  or  as  their  ideal.  Instead  of  this  hypothesis,  Rosen- 
miiller  afterwards  adopted  that  of  the  rabbins  who  reject  the  Messianic 
doctrine  (such  as  Jarchi,  Kimchi,  and  Aben  Ezra),  viz.  that  the  Servant  of 
Jehovah  is  the  Jewish  people;  and  the  same  opinion  is  maintained  by  Eich- 
horn  and  Hilzig,  but  with  this  important  difference  between  the  soi-disant 
Christian  and  the  Jewish  writers,  that  the  latter  apply  the  j)assage  to  the 


250  CHAPTERLII. 

present  dispersion  of  iheir  people,  and  the  former  to  the  Babylonish  exile. 
As  modifications  of  this  general  hypothesis  may  be  mentioned  Eckermann's 
extravagant  idea,  that  the  people  as  such  or  considered  in  the  abstract  is 
here  distinguished  from  Its  individual  members,  whose  words  he  supposes  to  be 
given  in  the  following  ciiapter.  Another  modification  of  the  same  opinion  is 
the  ground  assumed  by  Paulus,  iNIaurer,  Gesenius  in  his  Lexicon,  and  in  a  still 
more  qualified  manner  by  Ewald  and  Knobel,  viz.  that  the  Servant  of  Jehovah 
is  the  spiritual  Israel,  the  better  portion  of  the  Jewish  people,  as  distinguished 
either  from  their  ungodly  brethren,  or  from  the  heathen,  or  from  both.  Some 
of  these  explanations  are  so  perfectly  groundless  and  extravagant  that  they 
can  no  more  be  refuted  than  established.  This  is  especially  the  case  with 
those  which  make  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  any  individual  except  the  Messiah, 
of  which  it  has  been  well  said  that  they  might  be  multiplied  ad  libitum, 
there  being  no  more  show  of  reason  for  the  names  suggested  than  for  a  mul- 
titude of  others  which  have  never  been  proposed.  This  remark  may  be 
extended  to  the  theories  which  identify  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  with  the 
Maccabees,  the  House  of  David,  the  Noble  Exiles,  and  the  Priesthood,  leav- 
ing as  the  only  plausible  hypotheses  besides  the  Messianic  one,  those  which 
severally  understand  the  title  as  denoting  the  order  of  Prophets  or  the  Jewish 
people,  either  as  a  whole  or  in  relation  to  its  better  part.  To  these  the 
attention  of  the  reader  will  be  therefore  directed  in  comparison  with  that 
which  is  assunjed  as  the  basis  of  the  exposition,  leaving  the  others  to  refute 
themselves.  Of  those  which  have  been  mentioned  as  entitled  to  compara- 
tive consideration,  that  which  approaches  nearest  to  the  truth  is  the  hypo- 
thesis of  Beck  and  Ewald,  that  by  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  we  are  to  under- 
stand the  ideal  Israel,  or  rather  it  denotes  the  Israel  of  God,  not  considered 
as  a  nation  or  a  race,  but  as  the  church  or  chosen  people,  who  in  some  sense 
represented  the  Messiah  till  he  came,  and  is  therefore  often  blended  with 
him  in  the  prophetic  picture  as  a  complex  person,  sometimes  more  and  some- 
times less  conspicuous,  but  here,  as  we  have  seen  already,  totally  eclipsed 
by  the  image  of  the  Head  himself.  And  yet  even  in  this  case  there  are 
visible  such  striking  points  of  similarity  between  the  Body  and  the  Head, 
that  although  this  passage  can  directly  refer  only  to  the  latter,  it  confirms 
the  previous  conclusion  that  in  other  cases  the  reverse  is  true.  The  general 
views  which  have  been  now  expressed  on  this  and  other  points  will  be 
reduced  to  a  more  specific  form  in  the  progress  of  the  exposition,  during  the 
course  of  which  respect  will  be  had,  not  only  to  the  commentaries  usually 
quoted  in  this  work,  but  to  one  or  two  important  monographs  or  special 
expositions  of  this  passage,  the  most  important  of  which  are  IMartini's  Com- 
mentatio  Pl)iloIogico-critica  (Rostock,  1791),  to  which  most  later  writers 
have  been  largely  indebted,  and  Hengstenberg's  excellent  interpretation 
contained  in  the  second  part  of  his  Christologie,  the  valuable  substance  of 


CHAPTERLII.  251 

wliicl)  it  is  proposed  to  reproduce  in  the  ensuing  pages,  with  some  changes 
both  of  form  and  substance,  and  many  additions  from  more  recent  soui-ces. 
— In  the  verse  immediately  before  us  all  that  need  be  added  is,  that  the 
extraordinary  exaltation  promised  in  the  last  clause  is  such  as  could  never 
have  been  looked  for  by  the  Prophet,  for  himself  or  for  his  order,  especially 
upon  the  n)odern  supposition,  that  he  lived  in  the  time  of  the  exile,  when 
the  grounds  for  such  an  expectation  were  far  less  than  at  any  former  period. 
It  may  also  be  observed  that  the  personification  of  the  prophets  as  an  ideal 
individual  is  foreign  from  the  usage  of  the  Scriptures  ;  the  parallelism  o[  ser- 
vant and  nusstngers,  in  the  first  clause  of  ch.  44  :  26,  no  more  proves  the 
first  to  be  collective,  than  the  like  relation  oi  Jerusalan  and  cities  of  Judah 
in  the  last  clause  proves  the  same  thing  of  Jerusalem.  The  objection,  that 
the  title  servant  is  not  applied  elsewhere  to  Messiah,  would  have  little  force 
if  true,  because  the  title  in  itself  is  a  general  one  and  may  be  applied  to  any 
chosen  instrument ;  it  is  not  true,  however,  as  the  single  case  of  Zech.  3  :  8 
will  suffice  to  show,  without  appealing  to  the  fact  that  the  same  application 
of  the  title,  either  partial  or  exclusive,  has  been  found  admissible  above  in 
ch.  42:  1.   49:3,  and  50:  10. 

Vs.  14,  15.  As  many  ivere  shocked  at  thee — so  marred  from  man  his 
look,  and  his  form  from  the  sons  of  man — so  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations  ; 
concerning  him  shall  kings  stoji  their  mouth,  because  what  was  not  recounted 
to  them  they  have  seen,  and  what  they  had  not  heard  they  have  perceived. 
His  exaltation  shall  bear  due  proportion  to  his  humiliation  ;  the  contempt  of 
men  shall  be  exchanged  for  wonder  and  respect.  According  to  ihe  common 
agreement  of  interpreters,  v.  14  is  the  protasis  and  v.  15  the  apodosis  of  the 
same  sentence,  the  correlative  clauses  being  introduced,  as  usual  in  cases  of 
compaiison,  by  "^li^.i^S  and  1? .  The  construction  is  somewhat  embarrassed 
by  the  intervening  "i?  at  the  beginning  of  the  last  clause  of  v.  14,  uhich 
most  interpreters  however  treat  as  a  parenthesis  explanatory  of  the  first 
clause  :  '  as  many  were  shocked  at  thee  (because  his  countenance  was  so 
marred  etc.),  so  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations,'  etc.  A  simpler  construc- 
tion, though  it  does  not  yield  so  clear  a  sense,  would  be  to  assume  a  double 
apodosis  :  '  as  many  were  shocked  at  thee,  so  w  as  his  countenance  marred  etc., 
so  also  shall  he  sprinkle,'  etc.  As  thus  exphiined  the  sense  would  be,  their 
abhorrence  of  him  was  not  without  reason  and  it  shall  not  be  without  requital. 
^"cc'C  expresses  a  mixture  of  surprise,  contempt,  and  aversion  ;  it  is  frequently 
applied  to  extraordinary  instances  of  suffering  when  viewed  as  divine  judg- 
ments. (Lev.  26  :  32.  Ezek.  27  :  35.  Jer.  18  :  16.  19  :  8.)  It  is  fol- 
lowed by  the  preposition  ^?  as  usual  when  employed  in  this  sense. — Many 
does  not  mean  all,  nor  is  nations  to  be  anticipated  from  the  otlier  clause ; 
there  seems  to  be  rather  an  antithesis  between  many  individuals  and  many 


252  CHAPTER    LI  I. 

nations.  As  a  single  people  liad  despised  him,  so  the  whole  world  should 
admire  him.  nnu3o  is  a  verbal  noun,  equivalent  in  this  connexion  to  an 
infinitive  or  passive  participle.  It  strictly  means  corruption,  but  is  here  put 
for  disfiguration  or  deformity.  De  Dieu's  derivation  of  this  word  from  n^ria 
'  to  anoint,'  has  found  no  adherents  among  later  writers.  Henderson  con- 
strues it  with  'ni*"?"?  (the  disfiguration  of  his  oppearnnct),  notwithstanding 
the  interposition  of  tti-^^^'2 .  The  other  recent  writers  make  it  the  predicate 
and  ^i^x-iTQ  the  subject  of  the  same  proposition.  By  look  and /orm  we  are 
neither  to  understand  a  mean  condition  nor  the  personal  appearance,  but,  as 
an  intermediate  idea,  the  visible  effects  of  suffering.  The  preposition  from, 
away  from,  may  be  taken  simply  as  expressive  of  comparison  (more  than), 
or  more  emphatically  of  negation  (so  as  not  to  be  human),  w^hich  are  only 
different  gradations  of  the  same  essential  meaning.  Jahn  supposes  a  climax 
in  the  use  of  ■■r"'5<  and  cnij — his  appearance  should  be  far  below  that  even 
of  the  lowest  men  ;  but  this  is  looked  upon  by  Hengstenberg  as  weakening 
the  expression,  and  is  certainly  unnecessary,  as  well  as  founded  on  a  dubious 
usage. — Wj  is  the  technical  term  of  the  Mosaic  law  for  sprinkling  water, 
oil,  or  blood,  as  a  purifying  rite.  Jerome  supposes  a  specific  reference  to 
the  blood  of  Christ  and  the  water  of  baptism.  Hengstenberg  gives  the  verb 
the  secondary  sense  of  cleansing,  but  still  with  reference  to  the  effects  of  the 
atonement.  The  explanation  of  this  word  by  the  majority  of  modern  writers 
as  denoting  that  he  shall  cause  them  to  leap  for  joy  (Paulus,  Winer,  Gesenius 
in  Comm.),  or  rise  from  their  seats  with  reverence  (Ewald,  Gesenius  in 
Thes.),  or  start  with  astonishment  (Eichhorn,  Hitzig),  or  be  struck  with 
cordial  admiration  (Clericus,  Rosenmiiller,  Maurer,  Umbreit,  Knobel),  is  in 
direct  opposition  to  a  perfectly  uniform  Hebrew  usage,  and  without  any  real 
ground  even  in  Arabic  analogy.  The  ostensible  reasons  for  this  gross  vio- 
lation of  the  clearest  principles  of  lexicography  are:  first,  the  chimera  of  a 
perfect  parallelism,  which  is  never  urged  except  in  case  of  great  necessity  ; 
and  secondly,  the  fact  that  in  every  other  case  the  verb  is  followed  by  the 
substance  sprinkled,  and  connected  with  the  object,  upon  which  it  is  sprinkled, 
by  a  preposition.  But  since  both  the  constructions  of  the  verb  '  to  sprinkle  ' 
are  employed  in  other  languages — as  \ve  may  either  speak  of  sprinkling  a 
person  or  of  sprinkling  water  on  him — the  transition  must  be  natural,  and 
no  one  can  pretend  to  say  that  two  or  more  examples  of  it  in  a  book  of  this 
size  are  required  to  demonstrate  its  existence.  The  real  motive  of  the 
strange  unanimity  with  which  the  true  sense  has  been  set  aside,  is  the 
desire  to  obliterate  this  clear  description,  at  the  very  outset,  of  the  Servant 
of  Jehovah  as  an  expiatory  purifier,  one  who  must  be  innocent  himself  in 
order  to  cleanse  others,  an  office  and  a  character  alike  inapplicable  either  to 
the  prophets  as  a  class,  or  to  Israel  as  a  nation,  or  even  to  the  better  class 
of  Jews,  much  more  to  any  single  individual  except  the  One  who  claimed  to 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  1 1 .  253 

be  the  Purifier  of  the  guilty,  and  to  whom  many  nations  do  at  this  day 
ascribe  whatever  purity  of  heart  or  life  they  either  have  or  hope  for.  Another 
objection  to  the  modern  explanation  of  the  word  is,  that  it  then  anticipates 
the  declaration  of  the  next  clause,  instead  of  forming  a  connecting  link 
between  it  and  the  first.  This  clause  is  understood  by  some  to  mean  that 
they  shall  be  reverently  silent  before  him,  by  others  that  they  shall  be  dumb 
with  wonder  on  account  of  him,  by  others  that  they  shall  be  silent  respecting 
him,  i.  e.  no  longer  utter  expressions  of  aversion  or  contempt.  Gesenius 
asks  whether  kings  ever  personally  bowed  to  Christ,  as  intimated  here  and 
in  ch.  49  :  7  ;  to  which  Hengstenberg  replies,  that  the  only  word  which 
creates  the  difficulty  (^pcrsonaUy)  is  supplied  by  the  objector, — that  multi- 
tudes of  kings  have  bowed  to  Christ  in  one  sense,  whereas  none,  in  any 
sense,  have  ever  thus  acknowledged  their  subjection  to  the  prophets,  or  to 
Israel,  or  even  to  the  pious  Jews,  or  could  have  been  expected  so  to  do. — 
The  reason  of  this  voluntary  humiliation  is  expressed  in  the  last  clause,  viz. 
because  they  see  things  of  which  they  had  never  had  experience  or  even 
knowledge  by  report.  This  expression  shows  that  many  nations  must  be 
taken  in  its  natural  and  proper  sense,  as  denoting  the  gentiles.  It  is  accord- 
ingly applied  by  Paul  (Rom.  15:21)  to  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  among 
those  who  had  never  before  heard  it.  Interpreters  have  needlessly  refined 
in  interpreting  the  verb  see  as  signifying  mental  no  less  than  bodily  percep- 
tion. The  truth  is  that  the  language  is  not  scientific  but  poetical ;  the 
writer  does  not  put  sight  for  experience,  but  on  the  contrary  describes  expe- 
rience as  simple  vision. — For  the  stopping  of  the  mouth,  as  an  expression  of 
astonishment  or  reverence,  see  Job  29  :  9.  40  :  4.  Ps.  107  :  42.  Ezek. 
16:63.  Mic.  7  :  16. 


CHAPTER    LIII. 


Notwithstanding  these  and  other  prophecies  of  the  Messiah,  he  is  not 
recognised  when  he  appears,  v.  1.  He  is  not  the  object  of  desire  and  trust 
for  whom  the  great  mass  of  the  people  have  been  waiting,  v.  2.  Nay,  his 
low  condition,  and  especially  his  sufferings,  make  him  rather  an  object  of 
contempt,  v.  3.  But  this  humiliation  and  these  sufferings  are  vicarious,  not 
accidental  or  incurred  by  his  own  fault,  vs.  4-6.  Hence,  though  peraonally 
innocent,  he  is  perfectly  unresisting,  v.  7.  Even  they  for  whom  he  suffers 
may  mistake  his  person  and  his  office,  v.  8.     His  case  presents  the  two 


254  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  I  I . 

extremes  of  righteous  punishment  and  perfect  innocence,  v.  9.  But  the 
glorious  fruit  of  these  very  sufformgs  will  correct  all  errors,  v.  10.  He 
becomes  a  Saviour  only  by  becoming  a  substitute,  v.  11.  Even  after  the 
\vork  of  expiation  is  completed  and  his  glorious  reward  secured,  the  work  of 
intercession  will  be  still  continued,  v.  12. 

V.  1.  JJ'ho  hath  believed  our  report!  and  the  arm  of  Jehovah,  to  ichom 
(or  upon  whom)  has  it  been  revealed?  While  most  modern  writers,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  detach  the  three  preceding  verses  and  prefix  them  to  this 
chapter,  Hitzig  goes  to  the  opposite  extreme  of  saying  that  the  writer  here 
begins  afresh,  without  any  visible  connexion  with  the  previous  context. 
Ewald  more  reasonably  makes  this  a  direct  continuation,  but  observes  a 
change  of  tone,  from  that  of  joyous  confidence  to  that  of  penitent  confession, 
on  the  part  of  the  believing  Jews,  in  reference  to  their  former  incredulity. 
Martini,  Jahn,  and  Rosenmiiller  put  these  words  into  the  mouth  of  the  hea- 
then, acknowledging  their  error  with  respect  to  the  sufferings  of  Israel.  But 
this  hypothesis,  besides  being  arbitrary  in  itself,  and  unsustained  by  any 
j)arallel  case  in  which  the  heathen  are  thus  introduced  as  speaking,  requires 
a  forced  interpretation  to  be  put  upon  the  language  of  the  verse.  Thus 
Rosenmiiller  understands  the  first  clause  as  meaning,  'who  of  us  would  have 
believed  this,  had  we  merely  heard  instead  of  seeing  it?'  And  the  last  clause 
in  like  manner,  'unlo  whom  has  the  arm  of  Jehovah  been  revealed  as  unto 
us?'  Gcsenlus  and  the  later  writers  much  more  naturally  understand  the 
Prophet  as  speaking  in  his  own  name  or  in  that  of  the  prophets  generally, 
not  his  predecessors  or  contemporaries  merely,  as  Jerome  and  Van  Der  Palm 
assume  without  necessity.  They  also  for  the  most  part  retain  the  strict  sense 
of  the  preterite,  which  Hengstenberg  and  Hendewerk  exchange  for  the  pre- 
sent form,  believes  and  is  revealed. — n^iitsoi  is  properly  the  passive  participle 
of  the  verb  to  hear,  the  feminine  being  used  like  the  neuter  to  denote  what 
is  heard,  and  may  therefore  be  applied  to  rumour,  to  instruction,  or  to  speech 
in  general.  (See  ch.  28  :  9,  19.  Jer.  49:  14,  and  compare  the  Greek  uxo/;, 
Rom.  10:  16.  Gal.  3:2.  1  Thess.  2:  13.)  Hitzig  supposes  that  the  word 
was  here  suggested  by  the  wroi  of  the  preceding  verse.  The  restricted 
applications  of  the  term,  by  Gesenius  and  Maurer  to  the  news  of  the  deli- 
verance from  Babylon,  and  by  Hendewerk  to  the  preceding  strophe  (ch.  52: 
7—15),  are  alike  gratuitous.  Martini,  Jahn,  and  Rosenmiiller,  in  accordance 
with  their  notion  that  the  heathen  are  here  speaking,  understand  the  whole 
phrase  passively,  as  meaning '  that  which  we  have  heard  ;'  and  the  same  sense, 
on  a  wholly  different  hypothesis,  is  also  given  by  Umbreit  and  Knobel,  the 
last  of  whom  applies  the  term  to  that  which  the  Prophet  is  described  as  hav- 
ing heard  in  ch.  50 :  4,  5.  Gesenius,  Hengstenberg,  and  others  understand 
it  actively,  as  meaning  that  which  we  have  published  in  the  hearing  of 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  I  1 .  255 

others  ;  which  agrees  well  with  the  context  and  with  Paul's  quotation  (Rom. 
10:  16),  and  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  strict  sense  of  the   Hebrew 
words,  though   not  sustained   by  any  definite  usage,  as  Henderson  alleges. 
That  the  words  might  have  either  of  these  senses  in   different  connexions, 
may   be  gathered  from  the  fact,  that  in   2  Sam.  4:  4,  the  qualifying  noun 
denotes  neither  the  author  nor  the  recipient  of  the  declaration,  but  its  sub- 
ject, so  that  in  itself  the  phrase  is  quite  indefinite.     Some   understand  the 
interrogation  in  this  clause  as  implying  an  absolute  negation,  which,  accord- 
ing to  Hendewerk,  includes  the  very  Servant  of  Jehovah   himself,  who  is 
described  as  blind  and  deaf  in  ch.  42:  19.    But  there,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
prominent  idea  in  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  is  the  Body,  whereas  here  it  is  the 
Head.      According   to  Hengstenberg  the  implied  negation  is  not  absolute, 
but  simply  expressive  of  wonder  at  the  paucity   of  true  believers   in   the 
world  at  large,  but  more  especially  among  the  Jews,  to  whom,  with  Van  Der 
Palm,  he  understands  the  passage  as  specifically  referring,  because  it  had 
already   been    predicted,  in   the    foregoing  verse,  that  the  heathen  would 
believe.     There  is  no  inconsistency,  however,  even   if  we  take  the  words 
before   us   in   their   widest  sense;    because,   as    Calvin   has   observed,    the 
Prophet  interrupts  his  prediction  of  success  and  triumph  to  bewail  the  dis- 
couragements  and    disappointments   which    should    intervene.     The  same 
thing  had   already   been   predicted   indirectly  in  ch.   42  :  24,  and  similar 
objections  to  his  own  assurances  occur  in  ch.  49  :  14,  24.     The  last  clause 
is  understood  by  Knobel  as  assigning  a  reason  for  the  unbelief  described  in 
the  first:  they  did  not  believe  what  they  heard,  because  they  did  not  see 
the  arm  of  Jehovah  visibly  revealed.     But  most  interpreters  regard  the  two 
as  parallel  expressions  of  the  same  idea, — to  believe  what  God  said,  and  to 
see  his  arm  revealed,   being  really  identical.     The  advent  of  Christ,  his 
miracles,  his  resurrection,  his  ascension,  are  among  the  clearest  proofs  of  the 
divine  omnipotence  and  of  its  real  exercise,  a  skeptical  misgiving  as  to  which 
is  involved  in  a  refusal  to  believe.     The  arm  as  the  seat  of  active -strength 
is  often   put  for  strength  itself  (2  Chr.  32:8.  Job  22:8.  Jer.  17:  5),  and 
especially  for  the  power  of  Jehovah   (ch.  59:  16.    Deut.  4:  34.    5:  15. 
2G:8).     In  this  sense  it  is  commonly  regarded  as  convertible  with  hand; 
but  Hendewerk  maintains  that  the  latter  only  is  applied  to  a  gracious  exer- 
cise of  power  (ch.  41  :  20.  45:  11,  12.  48:  13.  49:2,  22.  59:  1),  while 
the  former  always  has  respect  to  war  (ch.  40:  10.  52:  10.  63:5.  59:  16). 
He  therefore  gives  the  clause  exclusive  reference  to  what  God  had  already 
done  for  Cyrus  and  designed  to  do  for  Israel,  by  making  them  victorious 
over  all  their  enemies.    But  this  distinction,  though  ingenious,  is  fallacious  ; 
because  it  confounds  the  usual  application  of  a  figure  with  its  essential 
meaning,  and  entirely  overlooks  the  many  cases  in  which  hand  has  reference 
to  the   divine   vengeance    (e.  g.  ch.  9:11,  20.    10:4.   19:  16.  25:  10. 


256  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  I  I . 

51  :  17),  while  in  some  of  the  cases  where  tlie  arm  is  mentioned  (eh.  40  :  12 
and  51  :  5)  it  is  hard  to  discover  any  reference  to  war.  But  the  true  solu- 
tion of  the  difficulty  is,  that  the  manifestation  of  God's  justice  is  commonly 
described  by  Isaiah  as  including  at  the  same  time  the  deliverance  of  his 
friends  and  the  destruction  of  his  enemies.  (See  above,  ch.  51  :  5.) — The 
use  of  X'  in  the  last  clause  is  explained  by  some  as  a  mere  variation  of  the 
usual  construction  w  ith  bs  or  5  ;  but  Hengstenberg  regards  it  as  implying 
that  the  revelation  comes  from  above,  and  Hitzig  supposes  an  allusion  to  the 
elevation  of  the  arm  itself. 

V.  2.  And  he  came  up  like  the  tendtr  plant  before  him,  and  like  the 
root  from  a  dry  ground ;  he  had  no  form  nor  comeliness,  and  we  shall  see 
him,  and  no  sight  that  we  should  desire  it.  There  is  something  almost 
ludicrous  to  modern  readers  in  Vitringa's  pedantic  notion  that  the  Prophet 
puts  these  words  into  the  mouth  of  a  chorus  of  converted  Jews.  There  is 
also  something  too  artificial  in  V^an  Der  Palm's  dramatic  distribution  of  the 
passage,  according  to  which  the  Prophet's  censure  of  the  unbelief  of  the 
Jews  (v.  1)  is  followed  by  their  justification  of  it  (vs.  2,  3),  while  the  first 
clause  of  the  fourth  verse  contains  the  Prophet's  answer  and  the  last  the 
rejoinder  of  the  Jews,  after  which  the  Prophet  speaks  again  without  any 
further  interruption.  Most  of  the  modern  writers  agree  with  Gesenius  in 
making  all  that  follows  the  first  verse  the  language  of  the  people  acknow- 
ledo-ing  their  own  incredulity  with  respect  to  the  Messiah,  and  assigning  as 
its  cause  th.eir  carnal  expectations  of  a  temporal  prince,  and  their  ignorance 
of  the  very  end  for  which  he  came.  The  hypothesis  of  Rosenmiiller  and 
others  who  regard  this  as  the  language  of  the  heathen,  acknowledging  their 
error  with  respect  to  Israel,  has  been  already  mentioned.  (See  above,  on 
ch.  52  :  13.)  A  novel  and  ingenious  but  untenable  hypothesis  has  been 
more  recently  proposed  by  Hendewerk,  viz.  that  the  speakers  are  the  elder 
race  of  exiles  in  Babylon,  by  whose  transgressions  that  infliction  was  occa- 
sioned, and  that  the  sufferer  here  described  is  the  younger  race,  for  whose 
sake  it  was  terminated,  just  as  in  the  case  of  the  fathers  and  children  who 
came  out  of  Egypt. — The  i  at  the  beginning  of  this  verse  is  not  causative 
but  narrative,  determining  the  past  sense  of  the  future  form  and  connecting 
the  sentence,  either  with  ch.  52  :  14  or  15,  or,  which  is  the  simplest  and 
most  natural  construction,  with  the  verse  immediately  preceding,  which, 
although  interrogative  in  form,  involves  an  affirmation,  namely,  that  the 
people  were  incredulous,  which  general  statement  is  here  amplified. — The 
common  version  of  br^;i  as  a  future  proper  (Ae  shall  grow  up)  is  utterly 
precluded  by  the  Vav  conversive,  and  gratuitously  violates  the  uniformity  of 
the  description,  which  presents  the  humiliation  of  Messiah  as  already  past. — 
pii"!  is  properly  a  suckling,  but  is  here  used  precisely  like  the  cognate 


CH  A  P  TE  R    Lll  I.  257 

Englisli  word  sucker,  by  which  Lowth  translates  it.  On  the  meanintr  of 
ttiniu,  see  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  228. —  Out  of  a  dry  ground  implies  a 
feeble,  sickly  growth,  and  as  its  consequence  a  mean  appearance.  The  dry 
ground,  according  to  Alexander  Morus,  is  Bethlehem,  which  he  describes, 
on  the  authority  of  Strabo,  as  a  barren  spot.  Along  with  this  may  be 
recorded  the  opinion  of  Eusebius  and  other  Fathers,  that  the  dry  ground* 
was  the  Virgin  Mary  ;  of  which  Calvin  might  well  say,  extra  rem  loquuntur. 
Out  of  a  dry  ground  and  the  parallel  expression  {before  him)  may  be  con- 
sidered as  qualifying  both  the  nouns,  and  separated  only  for  the  sake  of  the 
rhythmical  arrangement  of  the  sentence.  Before  him  is  translated  by  Hen- 
derson before  them,  and  by  Lowth  in  their  sight,  in  accordance  with  the 
explanation  of  J.  H.  Michaelis,  who  regards  it  as  descriptive  of  the  popular 
misapprehension  and  contempt  of  Christ.  IMost  writers  take  it  strictly  as  a 
singular,  referring  to  Jehovah,  and  analogous  in  meaning  to  those  words  of 
Peter,  disallowed  indeed  of  men,  but  chosen  of  God  and  precious  (1  Pet. 
2  :  4).  It  is  well  observed  by  Henderson,  however,  that  it  was  not  in  the 
sight  of  God  that  the  Messiah  was  a  root  out  of  a  dry  ground,  but  in  that  of 
the  people. — He  had  not,  literally,  there  was  not  to  him,  the  only  form  in 
which  that  idea  can  be  expressed  in  Hebrew. — Form  is  here  put  for  beauti- 
ful or  handsome  form  ;  as  in  1  Sam.  16  :  IS,  David  is  called  a  man  of  form, 
i.e.  a  comely  person.  The  two  nouns  here  used  are  combined  in  literal 
description  elsewhere  (e.  g.  Gen.  29  :  IT.  1  Sam.  25 :  31),  and  in  this  very 
passage  (see  above,  ch.  52 :  13).  They  denote  in  this  case,  not  mere- 
personal  appearance,  but  the  whole  state  of  humiliation,  and  as  Calvin  says 
are  to  be  understood  de  toto  regno  ciijus  mdla  in  oculis  hoviinum  forma 
nullus  decor,  mdla  magnificentia  fuit. — The  modern  writers  generally  disre- 
gard the  masoretic  interpunction  of  this  sentence,  and  connect  ^nx-iii  ^ith 
the  first  clause,  as  a  parallel  to  •i!TT^n:i .  The  meaning  then  is,  no  form  or 
beauty  that  we  should  look  at  him,  no  appearance  that  we  should  desire 
him.  This  is  precisely  the  construction  adopted  by  Symmachus,  ha  ^iSnim'^ 
Iva  im&vfitjOM^isp.  But  as  this  relation  of  the  clauses  is  too  obvious  to  have 
escaped  the  masoretic  critics,  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  they  were 
influenced  In  setting  it  aside  by  high  traditional  authority.  There  is  besides 
a  difficulty,  if  it  be  retained,  in  explaining  the  use  of  the  verb  r;s-i ,  which 
means  to  view  with  pleasure  only  when  followed  by  the  preposition  2  and 
the  sense  that  we  should  look  at  him  does  not  seem  entirely  adequate.  If 
we  adhere  to  the  masoretic  interpunction,  there  is  no  need  of  paraphrasing 
sinK-ir  with  the  English  Version  (ivhcn  we  shall  see  him)  ;  it  is  better  to 
give  it  its  direct  and  proper  sense  (and  we  shall  see  him).  But  as  both 
these  versions  suppose  a  transition  from  the  form  of  narrative  to  that  of  pro- 
phecy, there  is  the  same  objection  to  them  as  to  the  common  version  of 
^5sn .     On  the  whole,  therefore,  leaving  out  of  view  the  authority  of  the 

17 


•258  C  II  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  I  I . 

Masorah,  the  usual  conslmciion  is  the  most  satisfactory. — In  what  sense  the 
prophets  thus  grew  up  like  suckers  from  a  dry  soil,  or  the  Jew  ish  nation 
while  in  exile,  or  the  pious  portion  of  them,  or  the  younger  race,  it  is  as 
difficult  to  understand,  or  even  to  conceive,  as  it  is  easy  to  recognise  tliis 
trait  of  the  prophetic  picture  in  the  humiliation  of  our  Saviour,  and  the  gene- 
ral contempt  to  which  it  exposed  him. 

V.  3.   Despised  and  forsaken  of  men  (or  ceasing  from  among  men'),  a 
man  of  sorrows  and  acquainted  with  sickness,  and  like  one  hiding  the  face 
from  him  (or  us),  despised,  and  ive  esletm,ed  him  not.     From  the  general 
description  of  his  humiliation,  the  Prophet  now  passes  to  a  more  particular 
account  of  his  sufferings. — ^"n ,  from  h-m  to  cease,  is  by  some  taken  in  a 
passive  and  by  others  in  an  active  sense.     On   the  former  supposition,  the 
whole  phrase  may  mean  rejected  of  men  (E\iglish  Version),  forsaken  by 
men,  i.  e.  by  his  friends,  as  in  Job  19:14  (Gesenius),  or  avoided  by  men,  as 
an  object  of  abhorrence  (Hitzig,  Ewald,  Hendeweik).     On  the  other  sup- 
position, it  is  explained  by  Hengstenberg  as  meaning  one  who  ceases  from 
amoniT  men,  i.  e.  ceases  to  be  a  man  or  to  be  so  considered.    This  is  proba- 
bly the  sense  intended  by  the  Septuagint  version,  and  \s  certainly  the  one 
expressed   by   Aben   Ezra   (D'c:f'  03?  3Croi  !;7r)-     The  version  of  Symma- 
chus  (uuj[iuro^  ar8()on'),   with  which  the  Vulgate  and  Peshito  substantially 
ainee,  seems  to  rest  upon  the  same  construction  of  ^^n  that  is  proposed  by 
Martini,  who  regards  both  this  word  and  "i.^?  as  adjectives  deriving  a  super- 
lative import  from  the  })lural  following,  the  most  despised   and  forsaken  of 
men.     (Compare  Ps.  '22  :  7.  Prov.  15  :  20.)     But  for  this  sense  there  is 
no  authority  in  usage. — The  phrase  7nan  of  sorrows  seems  to  mean  one 
whose  afflictions  are  his  chief  characteristic,  perhaps   with   an  allusion  to 
their  number  in  the  plural  form.      (Compare  Prov.  29  :  1.)     Symmachus 
translates  the  phrase  yvoiazhg  roaoj ,  which  is  generally  understood  to  mean, 
known  or  distinguished    by  disease  ;   and   this  sense  is  retained  by  J.  D. 
Michaelis,    Paulas,    Jahn,    RosenmiiUer,    Gesenius    in    his    Commentary, 
Maurer,  and  Umbreit.     The  Septuagint,   Vulgate,  and   Peshito,  give  the 
first  word  the  sense  of  knoiving  (tiScog,  scicns),  from   which   Lowth   infers 
that  they  read  ?':;'i"' .     But   Hengstenberg  and  others   have  shown  that  the 
passive  participle  is  itself  employed  like  acquainted  in  English,  so  that  there 
is  no  need  of  supposing  any  difference  of  text,  or  even  that  the  passive  form 
was  used  in  an  active  sense.     (Compare  Song  Sol    3  :  8.    Ps.  112  :  7. 
103  :  14.)     Gesenius  in  his  Commentary  characterizes  this  interpretation 
of  the  word  as  "  false,"  but  quietly  adopts  it  in  the  second  edition  of  his 
German  Version. — In  the  next  phrase  "^noia  is  by  some  regarded  as  a  parti- 
ciple and  by  others  as  a  noun.     On  the  former  supposition,  the  entire  phrase 
is  explained  by  the  Septuagint,   Vulgate,  Targum,  Aquila,  Jarchi,  Lowth, 


CHAPTER    LIII.  259 

Koppe,  De  VVette,  and  others,  as  meaning,  he  ivns  like  one  hiding  his  face 
from  lis,  with  allusion  to  the  veiling  of  the  face  by  lepers  (Lev.  13  :  45)  or 
by  niourneis  (2  Sam.  15  :  .'30.  Ez.  14  :  17),  or  as  an  expression  of  shame 
(Micah  3  :  7).  To  this  Gesenius  objects  in  his  Commentary,  that  the 
whole  description  has  respect  not  to  the  conduct  of  the  sufferer  but  to  his 
appearance  in  the  sight  of  others.  In  the  Thesaurus,  he  adopts  this  very 
explanation,  without  noticing  his  own  objection,  though  he  still  avows  a 
preference  for  his  former  construction,  notwithstanding  the  harshness  with 
which  it  may  be  charged,  viz.  like  one  from  whom  one  hides  the  face.  J.  H. 
Michaelis  and  Rosenmiiller  give  the  Hiphil,  as  usual,  a  causative  sense, 
like  one  making  (others)  hide  the  face  from  him.  But  in  every  other  case 
•T'riDn  simply  means  to  hide,  and  occurs  repeatedly  in  that  sense  with  this 
very  noun  cae.  It  may  also  be  objected  to  the  explanation  of  the  word  as 
a  participle,  that  analogy  and  usage  would  require  the  form  i"'PiO^. ,  which 
is  actually  found  in  four  manuscripts,  but  no  doubt  as  a  conjectural  emenda- 
tion. Kimchi,  Martini,  and  Hengstenberg,  take  "iRD^  as  an  abstract  noun, 
meaning  properly  concealment,  and  explain  the  whole  phrase,  like  conceal- 
ment of  the  face  from  it,  i.  e.  like  that  which  causes  men  to  hide  the  face 
from  it.  But  although  the  hiding  of  the  face  is  elsewhere  mentioned  as  a 
natural  expression  of  displeasure,  shame,  and  sorrow,  it  does  not  occur  as 
an  expression  of  contemptuous  astonishment,  and  seems  to  be  a  forced  and 
exaggerated  method  of  expressing  such  a  feeling.  It  may  therefore  be 
better  on  the  whole  to  combine  the  ex[)lanation  of  ~np'5  as  a  noun  with  that 
of  sisaia  as  a  pronoun  of  the  first  person,  and  to  understand  the  whole  phrase 
as  meaning,  like  a  hiding  of  the  face  from  us,  i.  e.  as  if  he  hid  his  fiice  from 
us  in  shame  and  sorrow  ;  notwithstanding  the  objection  of  Gesenius,  that  the 
subject  of  description  is  not  the  demeanour  of  the  sufferer,  which  has  not 
only  been  abandoned  by  himself  (although  renewed  by  Hengstenberg),  but 
is  in  itself  unreasonable,  since  the  writer's  purpose  was  not  to  observe  the 
unities  of  rhetoric,  but  to  make  a  strong  impression  of  the  voluntary 
humiliation  of  the  Messiah,  which  could  not  be  more  effectively  secured  by 
any  single  stroke  than  by  the  one  before  us,  thus  explained. — Gesenius, 
Hengstenberg,  and  Umbreit  follow  the  Peshito  in  making  ht:;  the  first  person 
plural  (^we  despised  him)  ;  and  Martini  supplies  the  want  of  a  suffix  by  read- 
ing N^  "^tiTSS  instead  of  n^t  ntsa .  But  the  anomalous  use  of  the  future  creates 
a  difficulty  not  to  be  gratuitously  introduced  ;  and  the  analogy  of  njSD  in 
the  first  clause  makes  it  much  more  natural  to  take  this  as  a  participle  like- 
wise, with  the  other  ancient  versions,  and  with  Maurer,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  and 
Knobel. — Here  again  the  reader  is  invited  to  compare  the  forced  application 
of  this  verse  to  the  Prophets,  to  all  Israel,  to  the  pious  Jews,  or  to  the 
younger  race  of  exiles,  with  the  old  interpretation  of  it  as  a  prophecy  of 
Christ's  humiliation. 


260  CHAPTERLIII. 

V.  4.  Surely  our  sicknesses  he  bore,  and  our  griefs  he  carried  ;  and  tve 
thought  him  stricken,  smitten  of  God,  and  affiicted.  "|3X  is  determined, 
both  by  its  etymology  and  usage,  to  be  a  particle  of  affirmation.  The  sense 
of  but,  assumed  by  most  interpreters,  is  rather  what  they  think  the  writer 
should  have  said  than  what  he  has  said.  The  comparatively  rare  use  of 
adversative  particles  in  Hebrew  has  already  been  mentioned  as  a  striking 
idiomatic  peculiarity.  The  metaphor  is  that  of  a  burden,  and  the  meaning 
of  the  whole  verse,  that  they  had  misunderstood  the  very  end  for  which 
Messiah  was  to  come.  Sickness,  as  in  the  verse  preceding,  is  a  repre- 
sentative expression  for  all  suffering.  Our  griejs,  ihose  which  we  must 
otherwise  have  suffered,  and  that  justly.  The  plural  "^rbn  is  defectively 
written  for  ■i3''"'^n  ^  which  last  appears,  however,  in  eleven  manuscripts  and 
eighteen  editions  ;  while  on  the  other  hand  twenty  manuscripts  and  two 
editions  have  the  defective  form  ^33X3^:  ,  which  cannot  be  singular,  because 
the  pronoun  which  refers  to  it  is  plural.  Henderson  makes  his  English 
version  more  expressive  of  the  writer's  main  drift  by  employing  the  idiomatic 
form,  it  was  our  griefs  he  hare,  it  ivas  our  sorrows  he  carried. — The  expla- 
nation of  Nto;  as  meaning  merely  took  away,  is  contradicted  by  the  context 
and  especially  by  the  parallel  phrase  n^^o  ,  which  can  only  mean  he  bore 
or  carried  them.  It  is  alleged  indeed  that  one  is  never  said  to  bear  the  sins 
of  another,  and  some  go  so  fir  as  to  explain  these  words  as  meaning  that  he 
bore  with  them  patiently,  while  others  understand  the  sense  to  be  that  he 
shared  in  the  sufferings  of  others.  But  the  terms  are  evidently  drawn  from 
the  Mosaic  law  of  sacrifice,  a  prominent  feature  in  which  is  the  substitution 
of  the  victim  for  the  actual  offender,  so  that  the  former  bears  the  sins  of  the 
latter,  and  the  latter,  in  default  of  such  an  expiation,  is  said  to  bear  his  own 
sin.  (See  Lev.  5:  1,  17.  17:  16.  -24:  15.  Num.  9:  13.  14:3:3.  Ex. 
23  :  38.  Lev.  10  :  17.  10  :  2:2.)  For  the  use  of  '=o  in  the  same  vicarious 
sense,  see  Lam.  5:7.  (Compare  Ez.  18:  19.)  The  Septuagint  in  the 
case  before  us  has  qifQft,  Symmachus  av^Xu^s.  The  application  of  these 
words  by  Matthew  (8  :  17)  to  the  removal  of  bodily  diseases  cannot  involve 
a  denial  of  the  doctrine  of  vicarious  atonement,  which  is  clearly  recognised 
in  Matt.  20:  28  ;  nor  is  it  an  exposition  of  the  passage  quoted  in  its  full 
sense,  but,  as  Calvin  well  explains  it,  an  intimation  that  the  prediction  had 
begun  to  be  fulfilled,  because  already  its  effects  were  visible,  the  Scriptures 
always  representing  sorrow  as  the  fruit  of  sin. — Stricken,  as  in  some  other 
cases,  has  the  pregnant  sense  of  stricken  from  above,  as  Noyes  expresses  it, 
or  smitten  of  God,  as  it  is  fully  expressed  in  the  next  clause.  (See  Gen. 
12:17.  2  Kings  15:5.  1  Sam.  6  :  9.)  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  of 
supposing  an  ellipsis.  The  other  verb  nnj  was  particularly  applied  to  the 
infliction  of  disease  (Num.  14  :  12.  Deut.  28:  22),  especially  the  leprosy; 
which  led  Jerome  to  give  ?^5;  the  specific  sense  leprous.     Hence  the  old 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  I  r.  261 

Jewish  notion  that  the  Messiah  was  to  be  a  leper.  Theodoret  more  correctly 
uses  the  generic  term  fit^iuaziyM^drog,  equivalent  to  the  7zXtjyt].s^  Otov  udmiyi  of 
iEschylus. — Instead  of  the  construct  form  MS-a  ,  some  manuscripts  exhibit  the 
absolute  ns-a  ;  which  is  preferred  by  Bellarmine  and  some  others,  who  explain 
the  whole  phrase  as  meaning  a  stricken  God,  and  use  it  as  a  proof  of  the 
divinity  of  Christ. — By  stricken,  smitten,  and  afflicted,  we  are  of  course  not 
to  understand  stricken,  smitten,  and  afflicted  for  his  own  sins,  or  merely 
stiicken,  smitten,  and  afflicted,  without  any  deeper  cause  or  higher  purpose 
than  in  other  cases  of  severe  suffering.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  suppose 
a  reference  to  the  notion  that  great  suffering  was  a  proof  of  great  iniquity. 
(Compare  Luke  13:1.  John  9  :  2.) — In  order  to  reconcile  this  verse  with 
their  hypotheses,  Knobel  and  Hendewerk  are  under  the  necessity  of  proving 
that  the  pious  Jews  or  younger  race  of  exiles  suffered  more  in  the  captivity 
than  any  others,  which  they  do  with  great  ease  by  applying  thus  all  the 
descriptions  of  maltreatment  which  occur  throughout  the  Later  Prophecies. 

V.  5.  And  he  loas  pierced  (or  ivounded)  for  our  transgressions,  bruised 
(or  criished)  for  our  iniquities  ;   the  chastisement  (or  punishment^   of  our 
peace  (tvas)  upon  him,  and  by  his  stripes  we  were  healed.     The  translation 
of  the  particle  at  the  beginning  by  ivhcreas,  yea,  or  the  like,  is  a  departure 
from  the  Hebrew  idiom  wholly  unnecessary  to  the  clearness  of  the  passage, 
which  is  continued  in  the  simple  narrative  or  descriptive  form.     Aben  Ezra's 
application  of  the  verse  to  the  sufferings  of  the  Jews  in  their  present  exile 
and  dispersion,  is  worthy  of  a  place  by  the  side  of  Hendewerk's  assertion 
that  the  Prophet  here  speaks  as  one  of  the  older  race  of  captives  in  Baby- 
lon, acknowledging  the  error  of  himself  and  his  contemporari^  with  respect 
to  the  younger  and   better  generation. — ^^"'n-a  is  derived  by  Cocceius  from 
^w  to  writhe  with  pain,  and  translated  excrucialus  est ;  but  the  true  deriva 
tion  is  no  doubt  the  common  one  from  ^^n   to  perforate,  transfix,  or  pierce 
with  special  reference  to  mortal  wounds, — so  that  the  derivative  ^bn,  though 
strictly  meaning  pierced  or  wounded,  is  constantly  applied   to  persons  slain 
by  violence,  and  especially  in  battle.       Hence  the  Peshito  version  of  VjItd 
(killed),  although  apparently  inaccurate,  is  really  in  strict  accordance  with 
the  Hebrew  usage.      Vitringa  and   Henderson  suppose  a  particular  allusion 
to  the  crucifixion.      Hengstenberg  explains  the  word   more  generally  as  a 
metaphorical  expression   for  extreme  suffering.     This  agrees  well  with  the 
parallel  expression,  crushed  or  bruised,  to  which  there  is  nothing  literally 
corresponding  in  our  Saviour's  passion  ;  and  if  this  must  be  taken  as  a  figure 
for  distress  of  mind  or  suffering  in  general,  the  other  can  be  naturally  under- 
stood only  in  the  same  way.     It  is  very  possible,  however,  that  tlicrt-  niay 
be  a  secondary  and  implicit  reference  to  the  crucifixion,  such  as  we  have 
met  with  repeatedly  before  in  cases  where  the  direct  and  i)roper  meaning  of 


262  CHAPTER    I.  I  I  I . 

the  words  was  more  extensive. — As  ~C>i^  is  often  applied  elsewhere  to  cor- 
rection by  words,  some  explain  it  to  mean  here  instruction,  as  to  the  means  of 
obtainincr  peace  with  God.  But  the  stronger  sense  of  chostisemenf  or 
punishment  not  only  suits  the  context  better,  but  is  really  the  most  consis- 
tent with  the  usage  of  the  verbal  root,  and  of  the  noun  itself,  in  such  cases 
as  Job  5  :  17.  Prov.  22  :  15.  23  :  13,  as  well  as  with  the  subsequent  expres- 
sion on  him,  which  is  hardly  reconcilable  with  the  supposition  of  mere 
precept  or  example.  Whether  the  word  was  intended  at  the  same  time,  as 
Hengstenberg  supposes,  to  suggest  the  idea  of  a  warning  to  others,  may  be 
made  a  question.  The  chastisement  of  jjcace  is  not  only  that  which  tends 
to  peace,  but  that  by  which  j)eace  is  procured  directly.  It  is  not,  to  use 
the  words  of  an  extreme  and  zealous  rationalist,  a  chastisement  morally 
salutary  for  us,  nor  one  w  hich  merely  contributes  to  our  safety,  but,  accord- 
in"-  to  the  parallelism,  one  which  has  accomplished  our  salvation,  and  in 
this  way,  that  it  was  inflicted  not  on  us  but  on  him,  so  that  we  came  off 
safe  and  uninjured.  (Hitzig.)  The  application  of  the  phrase  to  Christ, 
without  express  quotation,  is  of  fiequent  occurrence  in  the  New  Testament. 
(See  Eph.  2:  14-17.  Col.  1  :  20,  21.  Ileb.  13:20,  and  compare  Isaiah 
9:  6.  Mic.  6  :  5.  Zech.  1  :  13.) — '^'^t'^  '^  properly  a  singular,  denoting  the 
tumour  raised  by  scourging,  here  put  collectively  for  stripes,  and  that  for 
suffering  in  general,  but  probably  with  secondary  reference  to  the  literal 
infliction  of  this  punishment  upon  the  Saviour. — X5";3  is  not  a  noun,  as 
Henderson  explains  it,  but  a  passive  verb,  here  used  impersonally,  it  ivas 
healed  to  us,  the  >i3^  limiting  the  action  to  a  specific  object.  It  was  healed 
is  a  general  proposition  ;  tviih  respect  to  ?/s  is  the  specific  limitation.  The 
use  of  the  h  may  be  otherwise  explained  by  supposing  that  the  verb  has 
here  the  modified  sense  of  healing  ivas  imparted,  as  in  v.  11^  P^'^^H 
means  to  impart  righteousness  or  justification.  Healing  is  a  natural  and 
common  figure  for  relief  from  suffering  considered  as  a  wound  or  malady. 
(Compare  ch.  6  :  10.  J  9  :  22.  30  :  26.  Jer.  8  :  22.  oO  :  17.  2  Chron.  7:14.) 
The  preterite  is  not  used  merely  to  signify  the  certainty  of  the  event,  but 
because  this  effect  is  considered  as  inseparable  from  the  procuring  cause 
which  had  been  just  before  described  in  the  historical  or  narrative  form  as 
an  event  already  past  :  when  he  was  smitten  we  were  thereby  healed.  It 
is  therefore  injurious  to  the  strength  as  well  as  to  the  beauty  of  the  sentence, 
to  translate  wiili  Henderson,  that  hij  his  stripes  ive  might  be  healed.  The 
mere  contingency  thus  staled  is  immeasurably  less  than  the  positive  asser- 
tion that  by  his  stripes  we  ivcre  healed.  The  same  objection,  in  a  less 
degree,  applies  to  the  common  version,  we  are  healed,  which  makes  the 
statement  too  indefinite,  and  robs  it  of  its  peculiar  historical  form. — Above 
thirty  manuscripts  and  as  many  editions  have  is'^xj'i^rj  in  the  j)lural, — a  form 
which  does  not  occur  elsewhere. — The  hypothesis  that  this  passage  has 


CHAPTERLIII.  263 

exclusive  reference  to  the  Babylonish  exile,  becomes  absolutely  ludicrous 
when  it  requires  us  to  understand  the  Prophet  as  here  saying  that  the  people 
were  healed  (i.  e.  restored  to  their  own  land)  by  the  stripes  of  the  prophets, 
or  by  those  of  the  true  believers,  or  that  the  old  and  wicked  race  were 
healed  by  the  stripes  of  their  more  devout  successors.  This  last  hyi)othesis 
of  Hendewerk's,  besides  the  weak  points  which  it  has  in  common  with  the 
others,  involves  two  very  improbable  assumptions  :  first,  that  the  distinction 
of  good  and  bad  was  coincident  with  that  of  young  and  old  among  the 
exiles  ;  and  secondly,  that  this  younger  race  was  not  only  better  than  the 
older,  but  endured  more  suffering. 

V.  6.  All  tve  like  sheep  had  gone  astray,  each  to  his  orvn  xvay  tvc  had 
turned,  and  Jehovah  laid  on  him  the  iniquitij  of  us  all.  This  verse  describes 
the  occasion  or  rather  the  necessity  of  the  sufferings  mentioned  in  those 
before  it.  It  was  because  men  were  wholly  estranged  from  God,  and  an 
atonement  was  required  for  their  reconciliation.  All  ice  dqes  not  mean  all 
the  Jews  or  all  the  heathen,  but  all  men  without  exception.  The  common 
version,  have  gone  astray,  have  turned,  does  not  express  the  historical  form 
of  the  original  sufficiently,  but  rather  means  we  have  done  so  up  to  the 
present  time,  whereas  the  prominent  idea  in  the  Prophet's  mind  is  that  we 
had  done  so  before  Messiah  suffered.  Noyes's  version  we  ivere  going 
astray  is  ambiguous,  because  it  may  imply  nothing  more  than  an  incipient 
estrangement. — The  figure  of  wandering  or  lost  sheep  is  common  in  Scrip- 
ture to  denote  alienation  from  God  and  the  misery  which  is  its  necessary 
consequence.  (See  Ezek.  34  :  5.  Matth.  9  :  36.)  The  entire  comparison 
is  probably  that  of  sheep  without  a  shepherd  (1  Kings  22  :  17.  Zech.  10:2). 
The  second  clause  is  understood  by  Augusti  as  denoting  selfishness  and  a 
defect  of  public  spirit  or  benevolence;  and  this  interpretation  is  admitted  by 
Hengstenberg  as  correct  if  "  taken  in  a  deeper  sense,"  viz.  that  union  amono- 
men  can  only  spring  from  their  common  union  with  God.  But  this  idea, 
however  just  it  may  be  in  itself,  is  wholly  out  of  place  in  a  comparison  with 
scattered  sheep,  whose  running  oft'  in  different  directions  does  not  spring 
from  selfishness  but  from  confusion,  ignorance,  and  incapacity  to  choose  the 
right  path.  A  much  better  exposition  of  the  figure,  although  still  too  limited, 
is  that  of  Theodoret,  who  underst^inds  it  to  denote  the  vast  variety  of  false 
religions,  as  exemplified  by  the  diff^orent  idols  worshipped  in  Egypt,  Phe- 
nicia,  Scythia,  and  Greece,  alike  in  nothing  but  the  common  error  of  depar- 
ture from  the  true  God.  Ei  y.iu  diucfnom  r/yt,-  TiXuriji,'  oi  TQnnoi,  navze^'  oiinnog 
rbv  orra  Otov  •/.niaXtlntnoTe^i. — The  original  expression  is  like  the  sheep  (or 
collectively  the  flock)  i.  e.  not  sheep  in  general  but  the  sheep  that  wander 
or  that  have  no  shepherd. — The  idea  of  a  shepherd,  altliough  not  expressed, 


264  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  I  I . 

appears  to  have  been  present  to  the  writer's  mind,  not  only  in  the  first 
clause  but  the  last,  where  the  image  meant  to  be  presented  is  no  doubt  that 
of  a  shepherd  laying  down  his  life  for  the  sheep.  This  may  be  fairly  inferred 
not  merely  from  the  want  of  connexion  which  would  otherwise  exist  between 
the  clauses,  and  which  can  only  be  supplied  in  this  way,  nor  even  from  the 
striking  analogy  of  Zech.  13  :  7  where  the  figure  is  again  used,  but  chiefly 
from  the  application  of  the  metaphor,  with  obvious  though  tacit  reference  to 
this  part  of  Isaiah,  in  the  New  Testament  to  Christ's  laying  down  his  life 
for  his  people.  (See  John  10:11-18  and  1  Peter  2:21,  25.)— The  read- 
ing of  one  manuscript,  >^r.ri  for  "'v^H,  is  probably  an  accidental  variation. 
The  meaning  given  to  this  verb  in  the  margin  of  the  English  Bible  (made 
to  meet)  is  not  sustained  by  etymology  or  usage,  as  the  primitive  verb  rsa 
does  not  mean  simply  to  come  together,  but  always  denotes  some  degree  of 
violent  collision,  either  physical  as  when  one  body  lights  or  strikes  upon 
another,  or  moral,  as  when  one  person  falls  upon  i.  e.  attacks  another. 
The  secondary  senses  of  the  verb  are  doubtful  and  of  rare  occurrence. 
(See  above,  on  ch.  47  :  3,  and  below,  on  ch.  64  :  4.)  Kimchi  supposes  the 
punishment  of  sin  to  be  here  represented  as  an  enemy  whom  God  permitted 
or  impelled  to  fall  upon,  assail,  the  sufferer.  Vitringa  and  Henderson, 
with  much  more  questionable  taste,  suppose  tlie  image  to  be  that  of  a  wild 
beast  by  which  the  flock  is  threatened,  and  from  which  it  is  delivered  only 
by  the  inteiposilion  and  vicarious  exposure  of  the  shepherd  to  its  fury. 
Most  interpreters  appear  to  be  agreed  in  giving  it  a  more  generic  sense. 
The  common  version  {laid  upon  him)  is  objectionable  only  because  it  is  too 
weak,  and  suggests  the  idea  of  a  mild  and  inoffensive  gesture,  whereas  that 
conveyed  by  the  Hebrew  word  is  necessarily  a  violent  one,  viz.  that  of 
causing  to  strike  or  fall,  which  is  faithfully  expressed  by  Umbreit  (liess 
fallen),  still  more  closely  by  Ewald  and  De  Wette  {liess  treffen),  and  cor- 
rectly but  less  definitely  by  Gesenius,  Hengstenberg,  and  others  {\varf). 
Among  the  ancient  versions  Symmachus  has  xutuvt7juui  tTzoiijcrtr,  and  Jerome 
posuit  in  eo,  which  last,  although  it  scarcely  gives  the  full  sense  of  the  verb, 
retains  that  of  the  preposition,  as  denoting  strictly  in  him,  i.  e.  not  merely 
on  his  head  or  on  bis  body,  but  in  bis  soul,  or  rather  in  his  person,  as 
expressive  of  the  whole  man.  The  word  y-^  does  not  of  itself  mean  punish- 
ment, but  sin  ;  which,  however,  is  said  to  have  been  laid  upon  the  Messiah, 
only  in  reference  to  its  effects.  If  vicarious  suffering  can  be  described  in 
words,  it  is  so  described  in  these  two  verses  ;  so  that  the  attempts  to  explain 
them  as  denoting  mere  forbearance  or  participation  in  the  punishment  of 
others,  may  be  fairly  regarded  as  desperate  expedients  to  make  the  passage 
applicable  to  the  imaginary  persecutions  of  the  proj)hets,  or  the  pious  Jews, 
or  the  younger  race  during  the  Babylonish  exile.     The  amount  of  ingenuity 


CHAPTER    L  I  I  1 .  265 

expended  on  these  sophisms  only  shows  how  artificial  and  devoid  of  solid 
basis  the  hypotheses  must  be  which  require  to  be  thus  supported. — With 
this  and  the  foregoing  verse  compare  Rom.  4  :  25.  2  Cor.  5  :21.  1  Pet. 
2  :  22-25. 

V.  7.  He  was  oppressed  and  he  humbled  himself,  and  he  will  not  open 
his  mouth — as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter  is  brought,  and  as  a  sheep  before  its 
shearers  is  dumb — and  he  will  not  open  his  mouth.  Having  explained  the 
occasion  of  INIessiah's  sufferings,  tlie  Prophet  now  describes  his  patient 
endurance  of  them.  As  c^d  is  sometimes  applied  to  the  rigorous  exaction 
of  debts,  De  Dieo  translates  it  here  exactus  est,  Tremellius  exigebatur  poena. 
Lowth  has  the  same  sense,  but  makes  the  verb  impersonal,  it  was  exacted 
and  he  was  made  answerable ;  but  !^:^  is  not  used  like  the  Latin  respondeo 
as  a  technical  forensic  term.  Van  Der  Palm  explains  the  first  verb,  he  was 
demanded,  i.  e.  by  the  people,  to  be  crucified  ;  but  t'Sj  does  not  mean  to 
demand  in  general,  its  primary  meaning  is  to  urge  or  press.  (See  ch.  3  :  5, 
and  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  43.)  The  general  voice  of  the  interpreters 
is  strongly  in  favour  of  the  old  translation,  he  was  oppressed  or  piersecuted. — 
The  next  phrase  has  been  usually  understood  as  a  simple  repetition  of  the 
same  idea  in  other  words.  Thus  the  English  Version  renders  it,  he  was 
oppressed  and  he  was  afflicted.  Besides  the  tautology  of  this  translation 
(which  would  prove  nothing  by  itself),  it  fails  to  represent  the  form  of  the 
original,  in  which  the  pronoun  x^^n  is  introduced  before  the  second  verb,  and 
according  to  usage  must  be  regarded  as  emphatic.  ^Martini's  proposition  to 
transpose  the  particle,  so  as  to  read  ^-V}.)  ^'^  -i? ,  is  merely  an  ingenious 
expedient  to  evade  a  difficulty  of  construction.  Gesenius  gives  X'ni  the 
sense  o(  although,  and  explains  the  whole  as  meaning  that  he  was  oppressed 
although  before  afflicted,  and  the  same  interpretation  is  adopted  by  Umbreit, 
Hendewerk,  and  Knobel.  There  does  not  seem  to  be  much  force  in  Heng- 
stenberg's  objection,  that  r^'J  as  well  as  b53  is  applied  to  severe  suffering. 
Gesenius's  interpretation  would  be  no  less  admissible  on  the  supposition  that 
the  verbs  are  perfectly  synonymous,  the  distinction  lying  not  in  the  verbs 
themselves,  but  in  the  ohnehin  which  he  supplies.  The  true  objection  is 
that  he  does  supply  it,  arbitrarily  referring  the  two  verbs  to  different  points 
of  time,  and  also  that  the  meaning  which  he  gives  xwi  is  forced  and  foreign 
from  Hebrew  usage.  The  same  objection  lies  against  Hitzig's  construction 
of  the  clause,  he  ivas  oppressed,  and  although  persecuted  opened  not  his 
mouth,  which  moreover  omits  in  translation  not  only  the  first  Vav  but  the 
second,  Ewald  explains  it  thus  :  he  u-as  persecuted  although  he  humbled 
himself.  The  same  reflexive  meaning  had  been  given  to  f^5.?^3  by  Koppe, 
Jahn,  and  others,  and  appears  to  be  implied  in  the  paraphrastic  versions  of 
Symmachus  (x«)  avro^  vni'inovae)  and  Jerome  (quia  ipse  voluit).    Supposing 


266  C  H  A  P  T  R  R    L  I  I  I . 

this  sense  of  the  verb  to  be  adinissible,  by  far  the  simplest  and  most  natuial 
construction  is  to  give  niJTi  its  ordinary  sense  as  a  conjunction  and  emphatic 
pronoun,  he  was  oppressed  and  he  himself  submitted  to  ajflictinn,  or  allowed 
himself  to  be  afflictefl.  There  is  then  no  tautology  nor  any  arbitrary  differ- 
ence of  tense  assumed  between  the  two  verbs,  while  the  whole  sense  is  good 
in  itself  and  in  perfect  agreement  with  the  context.  The  same  sense,  sub- 
stantially, is  put  upon  the  clause  by  Beck's  explanation  of  "wr«3  as  the  first 
person  plural  (tvir  ervnesen  uns  tyrannisch)  ;  which  is  favoured  by  the 
obvious  opposition  of  the  first  and  third  person  in  the  preceding  verse,  and 
by  the  useof  s'^i  in  this.  All  other  writers  seem  agreed,  however,  that  '(i"'! 
is  the  third  person  singular  of  Niphal.  All  interpreters^  perhaps  without 
exception,  render  nns"  as  a  praeter  or  a  present,  which  is  no  doubt  substan- 
tially correct,  as  the  whole  passage  is  descriptive.  It  seems  desirable, 
however,  to  retain,  as  far  as  possible,  the  characteristic  form  of  the  original, 
especially  as  it  is  very  hard  to  account  for  the  repeated  use  of  the  future 
here,  if  nothing  more  was  intended  than  might  have  been  expressed  by  the 
praeter.  At  all  events,  the  strict  sense  of  the  form  should  be  retained,  if  it 
can  be  done  without  injury  to  the  sense,  which  is  certainly  the  case  here,  as 
we  have  only  to  suppose  that  the  writer  suddenly  but  naturally  changes  his 
position  from  that  of  historical  retrospection  to  that  of  actual  participation  in 
the  passing  scene,  and,  as  if  he  saw  the  victin)  led  to  the  slaughter,  says,  '  he 
will  not  open  his  mouth.'  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  of  supposing  with 
Hitzig  that  the  i ,  though  separated  from  the  verb,  exerts  a  conversive  influ- 
ence upon  it.  The  repetition  of  the  same  words  at  the  end,  so  far  from 
being  even  a  rhetorical  defect,  is  highly  graphic  and  impressive.  In  the 
intermediate  clause,  we  may  either  suppose  an  ellipsis  of  the  relative,  equally 
common  in  Hebrew  and  in  Englisli  (like  a  lamb  tvhich  is  led),  or  suppose 
the  preposition  to  be  used  as  a  conjunction  (as  o  Iamb  is  led),  without  effect 
upon  the  meaning  of  the  sentence.  The  i  before  the  last  clause  is  not  the 
sign  of  the  apodosis,  nor  need  it  be  translated  so,  the  form  adopted  in  the 
Septuagint  version  (oi'rcoi,'  ovx  droiyst  to  atoiut),  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
that  the  words  refer  to  the  subject  of  the  first  clause,  and  not  to  the  sheep 
or  lamb,  as  Luther  and  Gesenius  assume,  in  violation  of  the  syntax  (^nn 
being  feminine)  and  the  poetical,  structure  of  the  sentence,  which  depends 
materially  on  the  repetition  of  the  same  words  in  the  same  sense  and  appli- 
cation as  before.  Besides  those  places  where  Christ  is  called  the  Lamb  of 
God  (e.  g.  John  ]  :  29.  1  Peter  1  :  18,  19.  Acts  8  :  32,  35),  there  seems 
to  be  reference  to  this  description  of  his  meek  endurance  in  1  Peter  2  :  23. — 
It  might  seem  almost  incredible,  if  it  were  not  merely  one  out  of  a  thousand 
such  examples,  that  Vitringa  formally  propounds  the  question,  quando  ton- 
sus  sit  Christus  Dominus  ?  and  gravely  answers,  when  he  was  shorn  of  his 
prerogatives  and  rights  by  the  Jewish  Sanliedrim.     As  if  there  were  no 


CHAPTERLIII.  267 

difference,  or  as  if  such  a  man  as  Vitringa  could  not  see  it,  between  saying 
he  was  silent  and  submissive  like  a  sheep  before  hs  shearers,  and  saying  he 
was  silent  and  submissive  before  his  shearers  like  a  sheep. 

V.  8.  -From  distress  and  from  jiulgment  he  was  taken;  and  in  his  gene- 
ration who  will  think,  that  he  was  cut  off  from  the  land  of  the  living,  for 
the  transgression  of  my  people,  (^as)  a  curse  for  them  ?  Every  clause  of  this 
verse  has  been  made  the  subject  of  dispute  among  interpreters.  The  first 
question  is,  whether  the  particle  at  the  beginning  denotes  the  occasion  or 
the  cause,  as  all  agree  that  it  does  before  I't^  in  the  last  clause,  or  whether 
it  is  to  be  taken  in  its  ordinary  sense  o{  from.  This  is  connected  with  another 
question,  viz.  whether  tal{:cn  means  delivered,  or  taken  up,  or  taken  away  to 
execution,  or  taken  out  of  life.  It  is  also  disputed  whether  "i:Ji'  means 
imprisonment  or  oppression  and  distress  in  general,  and  also  whether  ::Qtt3Ta 
means  judicial  process,  sentence,  or  punishment.  From  the  combination  of 
these  various  explanations  have  resulted  several  distinct  interpretations  of 
the  whole  clause.  Thus  the  text  of  the  English  Version  has,  he  was  taken 
from  prison  and  from  judgment ,  the  margin  of  the  same,  he  was  taken  away 
by  distress  and  judgment ;  Hengstenberg  and  others,  he  was  taken  (to  exe- 
cution) by  an  oppressive  judgment.  Most  of  the  older  writers  understand 
these  words  as  descriptive  of  his  exaltation — from  distress  and  judgment  he 
was  freed  or  taken  up  to  heaven.  So  Jerome  and  J.  H.  Michaelis.  Gese- 
nius,  Riickert,  and  Umbreit  also  understand  it  to  mean  that  he  was  freed 
from  his  sufferings  by  death.  To  this  interpretation  Hengstenberg  objects, 
that  the  account  of  the  Messiah's  exaltation  begins  in  v.  10,  while  the  inter- 
vening verse  still  relates  to  the  circumstances  of  his  death  ;  and  also  that  the 
reference  of  njsb  to  a  violent  death  is  here  determined  by  the  parallel  expres- 
sion, '  he  was  cut  off  from  the  land  of  the  living.'  He  might  have  added  that 
even  in  Gen.  5  :  24  and  2  Kings  2:9,  10,  the  word  is  used  in  reference  to 
a  singular  departure  from  the  ordinary  course  of  nature.  Luzzatto  and 
Henderson  give  "i^:  the  privative  sense  of  it-iVAou^,  and  understand  the  clause 
to  mean  that  he  was  taken  off  without  restraint  or  authority.  The  same 
construction  seems  to  have  been  anticipated  by  Zwingle,  who  paraphrases 
the  expression  thus,  indicia  causa  citraqne  judicium. — In  the  next  clause, 
the  interpretation  tmns  upon  the  question  whether  "I'i'^  means  life,  dwelling, 
posterity,  or  contemporaries,  and  the  verb  to  think  or  speak.  Luther,  Cal- 
vin, and  Vitringa  understand  the  clause  to  mean,  who  can  declare  the  length 
of  his  life  hereafter?  Kimchi  and  Hengstenberg  ex[)lain  it  to  mean,  who 
can  declare  his  posterity  or  spiritual  seed  ?  To  this  it  is  objected  that  the 
verb  requires  a  connective  particle  before  its  object,  and  that  Christ  is  not 
called  tlie  father  but  the  brother  of  his  people,  and  that  "'"'i  has  this  sense 


268  CHAPTERLIII. 

only  in  the  plural.  Clericus  sujiposes  it  to  mean,  who  can  worthily  describe 
his  course  of  life?  But  this  sense  of  i"^  is  not  sustained  by  usage.  Ro- 
senuiiiller,  Gesenius,.  and  others  follow  Storr  in  making  inin-rx  an  absolute 
noiuiiiative — as  to  his  generation  (i.e.  his  contemporaries),  who  considered 
it,  or  cared  for  it?  To  this  construction  Hengstenberg  objects  that  rx  sel- 
dom if  ever  denotes  the  subject  of  the  verb,  and  also  that  nniu'i  is  then  left 
without  an  object.  Neither  of  these  objections  lies  against  Ewald's  modifi- 
cation of  this  same  exposition,  which  makes  rx  a  preposition,  and  continues 
the  interrogation  through  the  sentence — in  (or  among)  liis  generation  (i.  e. 
his  contemporaries),  who  considered  that  he  was  cut  off  from  the  land  of  the 
living,  etc.  ?  Hofmann's  extravagant  inter[)retation  of  the  clause  as  meaning, 
who  cares  for  his  dwelling,  i.e.  where  he  is?  deserves  no  refutation. — *^U:  ? 
according  to  some  writers,  is  employed  in  Ps.  88 :  G  and  Lam.  3 :  54,  in 
reference  to  a  natural  and  quiet  death  ;  but  Hengstenberg  maintains  that  even 
there  a  violent  departure  is  implied. — Paulus  infers  from  the  singular  form 
"^53? ,  that  Jehovah  here  begins  to  speak  again  ;  but  Hengstenberg  explains 
it  as  equivalent  to  us,  and  a  similar  use  of  the  singular  form  by  a  plurality 
of  speakers  is  exemplified  in  1  Sam.  5  :  10.  Zech.  8  :  21. — Of  the  last  words 
1>05  "53  there  are  several  interpretations.  Aben  Ezra  and  Abarbenel,  fol- 
lowed by  Rosenmiiller  and  Gesenius,  apply  them  to  the  sufferer  here 
described,  as  meaning,  he  was  smitten,  and  infer  from  the  use  of  the  plural 
suffix  that  the  subject  of  the  chapter  is  collective.  Others  adopt  the  same 
sense  and  application  of  the  words,  but  deny  the  inference,  upon  the  ground 
that  Ta  ,  though  properly  a  plural  suffix,  is  not  unfiequently  used  for  a  sin- 
gular, as  the  very  same  form  is  in  Ethiopic.  This  ground  is  also  maintained 
by  Ewald  in  his  Grammar.  Hengstenberg  admits  that  the  pronoun  is  here 
plural,  but  refers  it  to  the  people,  and  supplies  a  relative — for  the  transgres- 
sion of  my  people  who  were  smitten,  literally  to  whom  there  was  a  stroke 
or  punishment,  i.  e.  due  or  appointed.  Ewald,  without  suj)posing  an  ellipsis, 
renders  it,  a  stroke  for  them,  i.  e.  smitten  in  their  place  and  for  their  benefit. 
Cocceius  gives  the  same  sense  to  the  words,  but  applies  them  very  differently 
as  a  description  of  the  people,  plaga  ipsis  adhaeret,  i.  e.  impuri  sunt.  (See 
the  use  of  3>55  in  Ex.  1 1  :  1.) — According  to  Hendewerk,  (he  land  of  the  living 
is  the  Holy  Land,  and  the  verse  is  descriptive  of  the  Babylonish  exile.  '  By 
a  divine  judgment  was  the  people  taken  away,  and  yet  who  can  declare  its 
future  increase?  It  was  cut  off  from  its  own  land,  for  the  transgression  of 
the  fathers  were  the  children  smitten.'  It  is  not  surprising  that  the  wi'iter 
who  invented  this  interpretation  should  sneer  at  the  Messianic  exposition  as 
extravagant  and  groundless.  The  reading  r/i^^  ,  which  appears  to  be  implied 
in  the  Septuagint  Version  and  is  adopted  by  Houbigant  and  Lowth,  is 
wholly  without  critical  authority  or  intrinsic  worth  to  recommend  it. 


CHAPTER    LIU.  0(59 

V.  9.  jind  he  gave  with  ivicked  (men)  his  grave,  and  loith  a  rich  (man) 
in  his  death  ;  because  (or  although)  he  had  done  no  violence,  and  no  deceit 
(was)  in  his  mouth.  The  second  member  of  the  first  clause  is  thus  trans- 
lated by  Martini  :  tumulum  sejjulchralem  cum  violentis  ;  which  supposes 
rri^a  to  be  the  plural  of  in^2,  a  height  or  high  place,  here  put  for  a  monu- 
mental mound  or  hillock.  The  same  interpretation  is  approved  by  Kenni- 
cott  and  Jubb.  But  as  the  plural  ni^a  retains  its  first  vowel  when  followed 
by  a  suffix  or  another  noun  (Deut.  32  :  29.  Mic.  3  :  12),  Ewald  adopts  the 
pointing  "iT^iiia  ,  which  is  found  in  three  manuscripts  ;  but  it  still  remains 
impossible  to  prove  from  usage  any  such  meaning  of  s^^s.  Thenius  goes 
further  and  reads  rninia.  And  all  this  for  the  sake  of  a  more  perfect 
parallelism,  although  the  common  text  affords  a  perfectly  good  sense,  viz. 
in  his  death,  i.  e.  after  it,  as  in  Lev.  11  :  31.  1  Kings  12:31.  Esther  2  :  7, 
and  the  only  difficulty  is  the  one  presented  by  the  plural  form,  which  is 
surely  not  so  serious  as  to  require  its  removal  by  an  arbitrary  change  of  text. 
It  is  not  even  necessary  to  explain  it  with  Jarchi  as  denoting  all  kinds  of 
death,  or  with  Abarbenel  as  implying  a  collective  not  an  individual  sub- 
ject. It  is  much  more  natural  to  assume  with  Hitzig  that  the  suffix  is 
assimilated  to  the  apparent  plural  termination  rii ,  or  that  it  is  simply  a  case 
of  poetic  variation,  as  in  Ezek.  28  :  8,  10. — Rosenmiiller's  version  is,  he 
gave  himself  up  to  the  wicked  to  be  buried,  or  he  left  his  burial  to  the 
wicked.  But  besides  the  forced  construction  here  assumed,  this  explanation 
leaves  I'^niTsa  unexplained,  and  does  not  agree  with  what  is  afterwards 
asserted,  that  he  did  no  wrong  etc. — Rabbi  Jonah,  as  quoted  in  the  Michlal 
Jophi,  explains  ^"^(li^  to  mean  a  wicked  man  ;  and  this  explanation  is  adopt- 
ed by  Luther,  Calvin,  and  Gesenius,  who  regard  the  word  as  suggesting  the 
accessory  idea  of  one  who  sets  his  heart  upon  his  wealth,  or  puts  his  trust  in 
it,  or  makes  an  unlawful  use  of  it.  This  is  so  arbitrary,  that  Martini  and 
some  later  writers  abandon  the  Hebrew  usage  altogether,  and  derive  the 
sense  of  wicked  from  the  Arabic  root  yjis..  But  this  is  doubly  untenable, 
first,  because  the  Hebrew  usage  cannot  be  postponed  to  the  Arabic  analogy 
without  extreme  necessity,  which  does  not  here  exist ;  and  secondly,  be- 
cause the  best  authorities  exhibit  no  such  meaning  of  the  Arabic  word  itself. 
Ewald,  aware  of  this,  and  yet  determined  to  obtain  the  same  sense,  effects 
his  purpose  with  his  usual  boldness,  by  changing  "I'^^^J  into  P'^t'S — a  con- 
venient word  invented  for  the  purpose.  Beck,  with  scarcely  less  violence, 
explains  it  as  an  orthographical  variation  of  }'■''}»  (ch.  49  :  25).  It  may 
appear  surprising  that  this  forced  imposition  of  a  new  and  foreign  meaning 
on  a  word  so  familiar  should  be  thus  insisted  on.  Luther  and  Calvin  no 
doubt  simply  followed  the  rabbinical  tradition  ;  but  the  later  writers  have  a 
deeper  motive  for  pursuing  a  course  which  in  other  circumstances   they 


270  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  I  I . 

would  boldly  charge  upon  the  great  Reformers'  ignorance  of  Hebrew. 
That  motive  is  the  wish  to  do  away  with  the  remarkable  coincidence 
between  the  circumstances  of  oui-  Saviour's  burial  and  the  language  of  this 
verse,  as  it  has  commonly  been  understood  since  Cappellus.  This  interpre- 
tation, as  expressed  by  Ilengstenberg,  makes  the  verse  mean,  that  they 
appointed  liim  his  grave  with  the  wicked,  but  that  in  his  death  he  really 
reposed  with  a  rich  man,  viz.  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  who  is  expressly  so 
called,  INIatt.  27  :  57.  The  indefinite  construction  of  the  verb,  and  the 
sense  thus  put  upon  it,  are  in  perfect  accordance  with  usage.  (See  e.  g. 
Ps.  72:15.  Eccl.  2:21.  Gen.  15:18.  Is.  55:4.  Jer.  1:4.)  Even 
Aben  Ezra  explains  gave  by  adding,  i.  e.  in  intention.  It  is  also  possible  to 
make  '^^'■>  the  subject  of  the  verb,  but  wholly  unnecessary.  Some  refer  it  to 
Jehovah,  and  suppose  the  sense  to  be  that  he  appeai'ed  to  assign  him  his 
grave  with  the  wicked.  Malefactors  were  either  left  unburied  or  disgraced 
by  a  promiscuous  interment  in  an  unclean  place, — a  usage  explicitly  assert- 
ed by  Josephus  and  JVIaimonides.  As  the  Messiah  was  to  die  like  a  crimi- 
nal, he  might  have  expected  to  be  buried  like  one  ;  and  his  exemption  from 
this  posthumous  dishonour  was  occasioned  by  a  special  providential  interfe- 
rence. To  the  different  interpretations  which  have  now  been  given  of  this 
first  clause,  may  be  added  two  as  curiosities.  The  first  is  that  of  Jerome, 
who  makes  rx  the  sign  of  the  accusative,  and  thus  translates  the  whole, 
(labit  impios  pro  sepultura  et  divitem  pro  morte  suo.  The  other  that  of 
Hohnann,  they  (my  people)  treated  him  (my  servant)  like  a  wealthy  tyrant. 
— '^^  (for  itax  b?)  is  properly  a  causative  particle  equivalent  to  for  that  or 
because  ;  but  most  interpreters  regard  it  as  equivalent  to  although,  which  is 
more  agreeable  to  our  idiom  in  this  connexion. — Knobel  observes,  with 
great  naivete,  that  the  reference  of  this  verse  to  the  burial  of  Christ  has 
found  its  way  into  the  exposition  of  the  passage  in  connexion  with  its  gene- 
ral application  to  that  subject  ;  to  which  we  may  add,  that  it  can  only  find 
its  way  out  in  connexion  with  a  wish  to  get  rid  of  that  unwelcome  applica- 
tion. At  the  same  time  it  must  be  observed  that  even  if  "i''-"  be  taken  in 
the  sense  of  wicked,  although  we  lose  the  striking  allusion  to  the  burial  of 
Christ  in  the  sepulchre  of  Joseph,  the  verse  is  still  applicable  to  his  burial, 
as  the  last  clause  then  means,  like  the  first,  that  they  appointed  him  his 
grave  with  malefactors.  Clericus  and  Kennicott  propose  to  transpose  ii3p 
and  T^m^sn,  because  there  seems  to  be  an  incongruity  in  saying  that  he  made 
his  grave  with  the  wicked  and  was  with  the  rich  in  his  death,  when  accord- 
ing to  the  history  he  died  with  the  wicked  and  was  buried  with  the  rich. 
But  this  apparent  difficulty  rests  upon  a  false  interpretation  both  of  "(n"?  and 
l"irnT23.  There  is  no  need  of  following  in  detail  the  laborious  attempt  to 
reconcile  this  verse,  even  after  some  of  its  expressions  have  been  wrested 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  I  I.  271 

for  the  purpose,  with  the  supposition  that  the  subject  of  the  prophecy  is 
Israel  in  exile,  and  that  the  burial  here  spoken  of  is  merely  political  and 
civil,  as  in  ch.  23:  8.  26  :  19. 

V.  10.  And  Jehovah  was  i)hascd  to  crush  (or  bruise)  him,  he  put  him 
to  grief  {ox  made  him  sick)  ;    if  {ov  xcheii)  his  soul  shall  make  an  offtring 
for  sin,  he  shall  sec  (his)  seed,  he  shall  prolong  (his)  days,  and  the  pleasure 
of  Jehovah  in  his  hand  shall  prosper.     Here  begins  the  account  of  the 
Messiah's  exaltation.     All   the   previous  sufferings  were  to  have  an  end  in 
the  erection  of  God's  kingdom  upon  earth.     As  the  first  clause  is  in  contrast 
with   the  last  of  v.  9,  it  may  be  read,  and  {yet)  Jehovah  was  pleased,  i.  e. 
notwithstanding   the   Messiah's    perfect   innocence.      The  sense  is  not,  as 
Barnes  expresses  it,  that  Jehovah  was  pleased  with  his  being  crushed,  which 
might  imply  that  he  was  crushed  by  another,  but  that  Jehovah  was  pleased 
himself  to  crush  or  bruise  him,  since  the  verb  is  not  a  passive  but  an  active 
one.     Luzzatto   makes  Iks';!  an  adjective  used  as  a  noun,  his  crushed  or 
afflicted  one,  contritus  suus.     Hitzig  makes  "^rCvl  a  noun  with  the  article,  it 
pleased   Jehovah    that   disease   should,   crush   him.      But  most   inter})reters 
appear  to  be  agreed  that  tlie  first  is  the  Piel  infinitive  of  sr-i,  and  the  last 
the  Hiphil  preterite  of  nbn  ,  strictly  meaning  he  made  sick,  but  here  used, 
like  the  cognate  noun  in  vs.  3,  4,  to  denote  distress  or  suffering  in  general. 
Martini  and  Gesenius  make  iN3'n  the  object  of  "'^nn ,  it  pleased  Jehovah  to 
make  his  wound  sick,  i.  e.  to  aggravate  his  wounds  or  wound  him  sorely. 
This  construction,  although   somewhat   favoured  by  the  analogy  of  Micah 
6  :  13  (compare  Nah.  3  :  19),  does  violence  to   both   words   and  is  incon- 
sistent with  their  collocation  in  the  sentence.     Jahn  accounts  for  the  future 
form  of  ni"c;ri  by  supplying  "I'^x^i ,  and  regarding  what  follows  as  the  words 
of  Jehovah,  who  is  afterwards  spoken  of,  however,  in  the  third  person.     But 
this  is  not  unusual  even  in  cases  where  Jehovah  is  undoubtedly  the  speaker. 
Hitzig  and   Hendewerk  agree  with   De  Dieu  and   other  early  writers  in 
explaining  c^'n  as  the  second   person,  which  is  also  given  in  the  text  of  the 
English  Version  (when  thou  shalt  make  etc.)  ;  but  as  Jehovah  is  no  where 
else  directly  addressed  in  this  whole  context,  the  construction  in  the  margin 
(when  his  soul  shall  make)  is  the  one  now  commonly  adopted.      Hengsten- 
berg  in  his  Christology  explains  'ii^"£?  as  a  mere  periphrasis  for  x^!^  ;  but  he 
may  be  considered  as  retracting  this  opinion  in  his  Commentary  on  Ps.  3  :  3, 
where  he  denies  that  the  expression  is  ever  so  employed.     Vitringa  under- 
stands it  here  to  signify  that  the  oblation   was  a  voluntary  one.     It  seems 
more  natural  however  to  explain  it  as  referring  the  oblation  to  the  life  itself, 
which  was  really  the  thing  offered  ;  just  as   the  blood  of  Christ  is  said  to 
cleanse   from   all   sin   (I  John  1  :  7),  meaning   that   Christ  cleanses   by  his 
blood  i.  e.  his  ex[)iatory  death. — C':;s  primarily  signifies  a  trespass  or  offence, 


07^  CHAPTER    LIU. 

and  secondarily  a  trespass-offering.  In  the  law  of  INIoses  it  is  technically 
used  to  designate  a  certain  kind  of  sacrifice,  nearly  allied  to  the  rx'^n  or  sin- 
ofFering,  and  yet  very  carefully  distinguished  from  it,  although  archaeologists 
have  never  yet  been  able  to  determine  the  precise  distinction,  and  a  learned 
modern  rabbi,  Samuel  Luzzatto,  expresses  his  conviction  that  they  differed 
only  in  the  mode  of  offering  the  blood.  The  word  is  here  used  not  with 
specific  reference  to  this  kind  of  oblation,  but  as  a  generic  term  for  expiatory 
sacrifice.  The  use  of  analogous  expressions  in  the  New  Testament  will 
be  clear  from  a  comparison  of  Rom.  3  :  25.  8  :  3.  2  Cor.  5  :  21.  1  John 
2:2.  4:  10.  Heb.  9:  14.  In  the  case  last  quoted,  as  in  that  before  us, 
Christ  is  represented  as  offering  himself  to  God. — As  the  terms  used  to 
describe  the  atonement  are  borrowed  from  the  ceremonial  institutions  of  the 
old  economy,  so  those  employed  in  describing  the  reward  of  the  Messiah's 
sufferings  are  also  drawn  from  theocratical  associations.  Hence  the  promise 
of  lonff  life  and  a  numerous  offspring,  which  of  course  are  applicable  only 
in  a  figurative  spiritual  sense.  The  Septuagint  and  Vulgate,  followed  by 
Lowth,  connect  the  two  successive  members  of  the  clause  as  forming  only 
one  promise  (/te  shall  see  a  seed  ivhich  shall  jjroloug  their  days).  The 
separate  construction  is  not  only  simpler  but  requisite  in  order  to  express 
the  full  sense  of  the  promise,  which  was  literally  given  and  fulfilled  to  Job 
in  both  its  parts  (Job  42 :  16),  and  in  its  spiritual  sense  is  frequently  applied 
to  Christ  (e.  g.  Heb.  7  :  16,  25.  Rev.  1  :  18).  The  seed  here  mentioned 
is  correctly  identified  by  Hengstenberg  and  others  with  the  mighty,  whom 
he  is  described  as  sprinkling  in  ch.  52  :  15,  and  as  spoiling  in  v.  13  below, 
whom  he  is  represented  in  v.  1 1  as  justifying,  in  v.  5  as  representing,  in  v.  12 
as  interceding  for.  They  are  called  his  seed,  as  they  are  elsewhere  called 
the  sons  of  God  (Gen.  6  :  2),  as  the  disciples  of  the  prophets  were  called 
their  sons  (1  Kings  2:25),  and  as  Christians  are  to  this  day  in  the  east 
called  the  offspring  or  family  of  the  Messiah. — nba^  does  not  refer  to  past 
time,  as  Martini  explains  it  (^Jelicissime  executus  est),  but  to  the  future,  into 
which  the  glorious  reward  of  the  Messiah  is  and  must  be  considered  as 
extending. 

V.  1 1 .  From  the  labour  of  his  soul  (or  life)  he  shall  see,  he  shall  be 
satisfied ;  by  his  knoivledge  shall  my  servant  (as)  a  righteous  one  give 
righteousness  to  many,  and  their  iniquities  he  will  bear.  In  this  verse 
Jehovah  is  again  directly  introduced  as  speaking.  The  )r:  at  the  beginning 
is  explained  by  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  and  Maurer  as  a  particle  of  time,  after  the 
labour  of  his  soul,  like  the  Latin  ab  itinere.  Others  explain  it  from, 
implying  freedom  or  deliverance.  Knobel  makes  it  mean  tvithont,  which 
yields  the  same  sense.  Most  interpreters  follow  the  Vulgate  in  making  it 
denote  the  efficient  or  procuring  cause  :  Pro  eo  quod  laboravit  anima  ejus. 


CH  APT  E  R    LII  I.  273 

The  English  Version  makes  it  partitive ;   but  this  detracts  from  the  force  of 
the  expression,  and  imphes  that  he  should  only  see  a  portion  of  the  fruit  of 
his  labours.     The  allusion  to  the  pains  of  parturition,  which  some  English 
writers  find  here,  has  no  foundation  in  the  Hebrew  text,  but  only  in  the 
ambiguity  of  the  common  version,  which  here  employs  the  old  word  travail 
not  in  its  specific  but  its  general  sense  of  toil  or  labour.      The  Hebrew  word 
includes  the  ideas  of  exertion  and  of  suffering  as  its  consequence.     J.  D. 
Michaelis  understands  the  clause  as  meaning,  '  from  his  labour  he  shall  joy- 
fully look  up  ;'  but  there  is  no  sufficient  authority  for  this  interpretation  of  the 
verb,  which  simply  means  to  see,  and  must  be  construed  with  an  object 
either  expressed  or  understood.     This  object  is  supposed  by  Kimchi  to  be 
good  in  general  ("12  'J1•::^^  ma  nxii)  ;  by  Jerome  seed,  as  in  the  foregoing 
verse  ;    by  Hengstenberg  the  whole  blessing  there   promised.     Abarbenel 
supposes  the  two  parts  of  that  promise  to  be  specially  referred  to,  '  he  shall 
see  his  seed,  he  shall  be  satisfied  with  days,'  a  common  scriptural  expression. 
(Gen.  25  :  8.  35  :  29.) — >2b  means  to  be  satisfied,   not  in  the   sense  of 
being  contented,  but  in  that  of  being  filled  or  abundantly  supplied.     It  is 
applied  to  spiritual  no  less  than  to  temporal  enjoyments.     (Ps.  17  :  15. 
123  :  3.  Jer.  31  :  14.)     Clericus  and  Hengstenberg  suppose  an  allusion  to 
the  processes  of  agriculture  and  the  abundant  produce  of  the  earth.      Some 
interpreters  regard  this  as  a  case  of  hendiadys,  in  which  the  one  word  sim- 
ply qualifies  the  other:    he  shall  see  he  shall  be  satisfied,  i.  e.  he  shall  abun- 
dantly see  or  see  to  his  heart's  content.     JMaurer  adopts  this  construction, 
and  moreover  connects  in^^na  with  what  goes  before,  and  gives  ^ixi.'i  the 
sense  of  seeing  with  delight :    mirijice  laetabitur  sapientid  sua.     Martini 
has  the  same  construction,  but  explains  ^v\'j^_  to  mean  the  knowledge  of  God,, 
i.  e.  piety  or  true  religion.      But  as  Jehovah  is  himself  the  speaker,,  Jahn 
refers  the  suffix  to  Messiah  and  gives  the  phrase  a  passive  sense,  'he  shall 
be  satiated  with  the  knowledge  of  himself,'  i.  e.  abundantly  enjoy  the  hap- 
piness of  being  recognised  by  others  as  their  highest  benefactor.     But  this 
is  neither  a   natural   construction  nor  consistent  with  the  accents.      The 
explanation   of  r'Jj^  as  meaning   doctrine    is   entirely   without    foundation 
in   usage.      The  only  satisfactory  construction  is  the   passive  one  which 
makes  the  phrase  mean  by  the  knoivledge  of  him  upon  the  part  of  others  • 
and  this  is  determined   by  the  whole  connexion  to  mean  practical  experi- 
mental knowledge,  involving  faith  and  a  self-appropriation  of  the  Messiah's 

righteousness,  the  effect  of  which  is  then  expressed  in  the  followino-  words. 

Gesenius  gives  P"nxri  the  sense  of  converting  to  the  true  religion,  or  turning 
to  righteousness,  as  in  Dan.  12  :  3.  But  that  justification  in  the  strict 
forensic  sense  is  meant,  may  be  argued  from  the  entire  context,  in  which  the 
Messiah  appears  not  as  a  Prophet  or  a  Teacher,  but  a  Priest  and  a  Sacrifice, 
and  also  from  the  parallel  expression  in  this  very  verse,  and  their  iniquities 

18 


274  CHAPTERLIII. 

he  will  hear.    The  construction  with  h  Cocceius,  Hengstenberg,  and  Maurer 
explain,  by  giving  to  the  verb  the  sense  of  bestowing  or  imparting  right- 
eousness, in  which  way  other  active  verbs  are  construed  elsewhere.     (See 
for  example  ch.  14  :  3.  Gen.  45  :  7.   2  Sam.  3  :  30.)     Another  solution 
of  the  syntax  is  afforded  by  taking  >  in  its  strict  sense  as  denoting  general 
relation,  and  the  verb  as  meaning  to  perforin  the  act  of  justification,  not  in 
the  general,  but  in  reference  to  certain  objects — he  shall  be  a  justifier  with 
respect  to  many.     In  the  next  clause  Lowth  omits  p'^'^a  because  it  stands 
before  the  substantive,  which  he  pronounces  an  absurd  solecism.     Gesenius 
supposes   the  adjective  to  be   prefixed   because  it  is  peculiarly  emphatic. 
Heno^stenberg  goes  further  and  supposes  it  to  be  used  as  a  noun,  the  right- 
eous one,  my  servant.     But  as  this  would  seem  to  require  the  article,  it  is 
perhaps   better  to  explain  P'^'^s  with   Ewald,  as  a  righteous  person  (als 
Gerechter),   which   idea   Maurer   thus   expresses   paraphrastically,  for  my 
servant  is  righteous.     Martini's  explanation  of  the  clause  as  meaning,  the 
Saviour  my  servant  shall  save  many,  has  met  with  little  favour,  even  among 
those  who   adopt  an  analogous   explanation  of  P"!^  and  >^i^'7^  elsewhere. 
According  to  Beck  the  sense  of  the  whole  clause  is,  '  by  his  knowledge  of 
God  he  shall  justify  himself  or  show  himself  righteous  ;  righteous  is  my 
servant  for  many,  i.  e.  for  their  benefit.' — All  mistake  and  doubt  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  justification  here  intended,  or  of  the  healing  mentioned  in  v.  6, 
or  of  the  cleansing  mentioned  in  ch.  52  :  15,  is  precluded  by  the  addition 
of  the  words,  and  he  shall  bear  their  iniquities.     The  introduction  of  the 
pronoun  makes  a  virtual  antithesis,   suggesting   the  idea   of  exchange  or 
mutual  substitution.      They  shall   receive   his   righteousness,  and  he  shall 
bear  their  burdens.     One  part  of  the  doctrine  taught  is  well  expressed  by 
Jerome :  et  iniquitates  eorum  ipse  portahit,  quas  illi  portare  non  poterant, 
et  quorum  pondere  opprimehantur.     The  whole  is  admirably  paraphrased 
by  Calvin  :     Christus  justijicat  homines    dando  ipsis   justitiam  suam,  et 
vicissim  in  se  suscipit  peccata  ipsorum,  ut  ea  expiet. — The  preterite  sense 
given  to  "^'-T:  by  Martini  and  others  is  entirely  arbitrary  and  rejected  by  the 
later  Germans  as  forbidden  by  the  futures  which  precede  and  follow,  all 
referring  to  the  state  of  exaltation.     Gesenius,  however,  though  he  makes 
the  expression  future,  extenuates  it  by  explaining  it  to  mean  that  he  shall 
make  their  burden   lighter  by  his   doctrine  and  by  promoting  their  moral 
improvement.     But  this  is  at  once  inconsistent  with  the  context  and  with 
his  own  interpretation  of  the  fourth  verse,  where  he  understands  the  similar 
expressions  as  referring  to  vicarious  atonement,  while  Hitzig  is  guilty  of  the 
same  inconsistency,  but  in  a  reversed  order,  making  this  verse  teach  the 
doctrine  and  the  other  not.-^-In  order  to  do  justice  to  the  theories  which 
represent  this  passage  as  a  prophecy  of  the  return  from  exile,  it  should  here 
be  mentioned  that  Maurer  understands  this  verse  as  meaning  that  the  pious 


CHAPTERLIII.  275 

Jews  should  not  refuse  to  shace  the  punishment  incurred  by  their  ungodly 
brethren,  and  Luzzatto  that  they  should  endure  with  patience  the  maltreat- 
ment and  misconduct  of  the  world  around  them.  As  for  Hendewerk,  he 
boldly  denies  that  P"''^i£!  is  used  in  a  forensic  sense,  or  that  baoi  means  to 
bear  in  any  other  sense  than  that  of  the  Latin  phrase  toUere  morbum  or  do- 
lores.  Knobel  sums  up  his  exposition  of  the  verse  by  saying  that  the  many 
are  without  doubt  the  heathen  who  should  be  converted,  and  to  whom  the 
Jews  sustained  the  same  relalion  as  a  jirophet  or  a  priest  to  laymen. 

V.  12.  Therefore  will  1  diviJe  to  him  among  the  many,  and  loith  the 
strong  shall  he  divide  the  spoil,  in  lieu  of  this  that  he  bared  unto  death  his 
soul,  and  with  the  transgressors  loas  numbered,  and  he  {liimself)  bare  the 
sin  of  many,  and  for  the  transgressors  he  shall  make  intercession.  The 
Septuagint  and  Vulgate  make  the  many  and  the  strong  the  very  spoil  to  be 
divided  (^xhjQovofiijoei  TzoXlovg ,  dispertiam  ei  plurimos).  The  same  con- 
struction is  retained  by  Lowth,  Martini,  Rosenmliller,  Hengstenberg,  and 
others.  It  would  scarcely  be  natural,  however,  even  if  both  adjectives  were 
preceded  by  the  ambiguous  particle  rx  ,  much  less  when  the  first  has  3  before 
it,  which  occurs  no  where  else  as  a  connective  of  this  verb  with  its  object. 
It  is  better  therefore  to  adopt  the  usual  construction,  sanctioned  by  Calvin, 
Gesenius,  and  Ewald,  which  supposes  him  to  be  described  as  equal  to  the 
greatest  conquerors.  If  this  is  not  enough,  or  if  the  sense  is  frigid,  as  Mar- 
tini alleges,  it  is  not  the  fault  of  the  interpreter,  who  has  no  right  to  strengthen 
the  expressions  of  his  author  by  means  of  forced  constructions.  The  simple 
meaning  of  the  first  clause  is  that  he  shall  be  triumphant,  not  that  others 
shall  be  sharers  in  his  victory,  but  that  he  shall  be  as  gloriously  successful 
in  his  enterprise  as  other  victors  ever  were  in  theirs.  Indeed  the  same  sense 
may  be  thus  obtained,  for  which  the  writers  above  mentioned  have  departed 
from  the  obvious  construction,  if,  instead  of  making  a  and  ns  denote  com- 
parison, we  understand  them  to  denote  locality,  and  to  describe  him  as 
obtaining  spoil  not  ivith  but  among  the  many  and  the  strong,  and  thus  secur- 
ing as  the  fruits  of  victory  not  only  their  possessions  but  themselves. — 
Hengstenberg  gives  tj^s'i  the  sense  of  mighty,  simply  because  that  idea  is 
expressed  by  the  parallel  term  ;  which  rather  proves  the  contrary,  as  a 
synonymous  parallelism  would  in  this  case  be  enfeebling,  and  the  very  same 
word  is  admitted  to  mean  many  by  Hengstenberg  himself  in  the  last  clause. 
— Abarbenel's  objection,  that  Christ  never  waged  war  or  divided  spoil,  has 
been  eagerly  caught  up  and  repeated  by  the  rationalistic  school  of  critics. 
But  Hengstenberg  has  clearly  shown  that  spiritual  triumphs  must  be  here 
intended,  because  no  others  could  be  represented  as  the  fruit  of  voluntary 
humiliation  and  vicarious  suffering,  and  because  the  same  thing  is  described 
in  the  context  as  a  sprinkling  of  the  nations,  as  a  bearing  of  their  guilt,  as 


076  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  I  I . 

their  justification.  The  many  and  the  strong  of  this  verse  are  the  nations 
and  the  kings  of  ch.  52  :  15,  the  spiritual  seed  of  v.  8  and  10  above. 
(Compare  ch.  11  :  10  and  Ps.  2  :  8.) — The  last  clause  recapitulates  the 
claims  of  the  Messiah  to  this  glorious  reward,  nn^n  is  commonly  explained 
to  mean  poured  out,  with  an  allusion  to  the  shedding  of  blood  considered  as 
the  vehicle  of  life.  (Gen.  9  :  4.  Lev.  17  :  11.)  Beck  even  goes  so  far  as 
to  say  that  the  writer  looks  upon  the  soul  itself  as  a  material  fluid  running 
in  the  blood.  Not  only  is  this  inference  a  forced  one,  but  the  premises  from 
which  it  is  deduced  are  doubtful  ;  for  it  seems  more  accordant  with  the 
usage  of  the  verb,  and  at  the  same  time  to  afford  a  better  sense,  if  we  explain 
it  to  mean  7nade  bare  or  exposed  to  death.  The  assertion  that  n"-^  would 
then  be  superfluous  is  refuted  by  the  analogy  of  Judg.  5  :  18. — The  reflex- 
ive sense  which  Hengstenberg  and  others  give  to  ^^^i  (numbered  himself  or 
suffered  himself  to  be  numbered),  though  not  absolutely  necessary,  is  strongly 
recommended  by  the  context,  and  the  obvious  consideration  that  his  being 
numbered  passively  among  them  was  not  such  a  claim  to  subsequent  reward 
as  a  voluntary  acquiescence  in  their  estimation. — The  application  of  this 
clause  to  our  Saviour's  crucifixion  between  thieves  (Mark  15  :  28)  is  justly 
said  by  Hengstenberg  not  to  exhaust  the  whole  sense  of  the  prophecy.  It 
rather  points  out  one  of  tho-e  remarkable  coincidences  which  were  brought 
about  by  Providence  between  the  prophecies  and  the  circumstances  of  our 
Saviour's  passion. — '■t"-:^.1  does  not  mean  he  fell  among  sinners,  i.  e.  he  was 
reckoned  one  of  them  (Maurer),  but,  as  in  Jer.  06  :  25,  denotes  intercession, 
not  in  the  restricted  sense  of  prayer  for  others,  but  in  the  wider  one  of  meri- 
torious and  prevailing  intervention,  which  is  ascribed  to  Christ  in  the  New 
Testament,  not  as  a  work  already  finished,  like  that  of  atonement,  but  as 
one  still  going  on  (Rom.  8  :  34.  Heb.  9  :  24.  1  John  2:1),  for  which 
cause  the  Prophet  here  employs  the  future  form.  There  is  no  ground, 
therefore,  for  explaining  it  as  a  descriptive  present,  or  perverting  it  into  a 
preterite,  nor  even  for  transforming  X"^3  to  a  future  likewise  for  the  sake  of 
uniformity.  Because  the  Prophet  speaks  of  the  atonement  as  already  past, 
and  of  the  work  of  intercession  as  still  future,  it  follows,  not  as  some  imagine 
that  he  meant  to  represent  both  as  past  or  both  as  future,  but  on  the  con- 
trary that  he  has  said  precisely  what  he  meant  to  say,  provided  that  we 
give  his  words  their  simple,  obvious,  and  unforced  meaning.  The  X'rTi  does 
not  mean  and  yet,  whereas,  or  although,  but  is  either  designed  to  make  the 
pronoun  emphatic  (he  himself  or  he  on  his  part),  or,  as  Hengstenberg  sug- 
gests, to  show  that  the  last  two  members  of  the  clause  are  not  dependent  on 
the  "iijs*,  rrn .  This  last  phrase  does  not  simply  mean  because,  but  expresses 
more  distinctly  the  idea  of  reward  or  compensation.  The  most  specious 
objection  to  the  old  interpretation  of  this  verse,  as  teaching  the  doctrine  of 
vicarious  atonement,  is  the  one  made  by  Luzzatto,  who  asserts  that  xbj » 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  I  1 .  277 

when  directly  followed  by  a  noun  denoting  sin,  invariably  means  to  forgive 
or  pardon  it,  except  in  Lev.  10  :  17,  where  it  means  to  atone  for  it,  but 
never  to  bear  the  sins  of  others,  which  can  only  be  expressed  by  2  Nbj ,  as 
in  Ezek.  18  :  19,  20.     In  proof  of  his  general  assertion,  he  appeals  to  Gen. 
50  :  17.  Ex.  10  :  17.  32  :  32.  34  :  7.  Ps.  32  :  5.  85  :  3.  Job  7  :  21,  in 
all  which  cases  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  sense  which  he  alleges  is  the 
true  one.      It  is  no  sufficient  answer  to  this  argument  to  say  that  the  parallel 
expression    (=J^3'i^  ^25"')  determines  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  in  question  ; 
since  all  parallelisms  are  not  synonymous,  and  no  parallelism  can  prove  any 
thing  in  opposition   to  a  settled  usage.     But  although  the  parallel  phrase 
cannot  change  or  even  ascertain  the  sense  of  this,  it  does  itself  undoubtedly 
express  the  idea  which  the  objector  seeks  to  banish  from  the  text ;  since  no 
one  can   pretend  to  say  tliat  ^50  miCans  to  pardon,  and   it   matters  not  on 
which  side  of  the  parallel  the  disputed  doctrine  is  expressed,  if  it  only  be 
expressed  at  all.     Little  or  nothing  would  be  therefore  gained  by  proving 
that  xisn  srs  only  means  to  pardon.    But  this  is  very  far  from  being  proved 
by  the  induction  which  Luzzatto  has  exhibited,  and  by  which  he  has  unin- 
tentionally put  a  weapon  into  the  hands  of  his  opponents  while  attempting 
to  disarm  them.      How  can  this  learned  and  ingenious  Jew  account  for  the 
fact,  which  he  himself  asserts,  that  the  idea  of  forgiveness  is  expressed  in 
Hebrew  by  the  verb  n^d  ?     The   most   plausible   account  which  he  could 
probably  give  is  that    i<^i  means  to  take  away,  and  that  to  pardon  is  to  take 
away  sin.     But  let  it  be  observed,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  two  ideas  are 
by  no  means  identical,  and  that  to  many,  perhaps  most  minds,  the  phrase 
to  take  aivay  sin  suggests  the  idea,  not  of  pardon  properly  so  called,  but  of 
something  preparatory  to  it  ;    and  what  is  this  something  but  atonement  ? 
In  the  next  place,  the  primary  and   proper  meaning  of  xioj  is  not  to  take 
away,  but  to  take  up,  or  to  take  upon  one's  self;  its  most  frequent  secondary 
meaning  is  to  take  about  or  carry,  and  even  in  the  cases  where  it  means  to 
take  away,  it  means  to  take  away  by  taking  up  and  bearing :  so  that  even 
if  N::n  X'i^a  means  to  take  away  sin,  it  would  necessarily  suggest  the  idea  of 
its  being,  in  some  sense,  taken  up  and   borne,  as  the  means  of  its  removal. 
In  the  third  place,  the  only  satisfactory  solution  of  the  question  above  stated 
is,  that  the  usage,  to  which  it  relates,  presupposes  the  doctrine,  that  the 
only  way  in  which  a  holy  God  can  take  away  sin  is  by  bearing  it  ;  in  other 
words  he  can  forgive  it  only  by  providing  an  atonement  for  it.     This  alone 
enables  him  to  be  supremely  just  and  yet  a  justifier,  not  of  the  innocent,  but 
of  the  guilty.     Thus  the  usage,  which  Luzzatto  so  triumphantly  adduces  to 
disprove  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  is  found,  on  deeper  and  more  thorough 
scrutiny,   itself  to   presuppose    that   very  doctrine.     But   lastly,  let  it  be 
observed  that  Luzzatto  is  compelled  to  grant  that  X'^'J  may  mean  to  bear 
the  guilt  of  others  as  a  substitute,  but  modestly  asks  us   to  believe  that  it 


278  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  I  I . 

• 

has  this  sense  only  in  one  place  (Ezek.  18  :  20),  and  even  there  only 
because  followed  by  a  2;  as  if  that  construction,  which  is  perpetually 
interchanged  with  the  direct  one,  could  have  more  effect  in  that  case, 
than  the  context  and  parallelism  in  the  one  before  us.  The  only  other 
aberration  which  it  will  be  necessary  here  to  notice,  is  the  strange  opin- 
ion, broached  by  Ewald,  with  his  characteristic  confidence  and  absti- 
nence from  proof,  that  this  whole  passage,  from  the  thirteenth  verse  of 
the  preceding  chapter,  is  the  work  of  an  older  writer  than  the  Great 
Unknown  to  whom  he  ascribes  the  other  chapters,  and  whom  he  supposes 
to  have  thrust  it  into  the  midst  of  his  own  composition,  without  any  reason 
why  it  should  stand  any  where,  and  still  less  why  it  should  stand  just  in 
this  place  ;  since,  according  to  Ewald's  own  account,  it  has  no  direct  con- 
nexion either  with  what  goes  before  or  follows.  The  arguments  by  which 
he  undertakes  to  justify  this  wild  hypothesis  are  such  as  we  have  long  since 
learned  to  rate  at  their  true  value,  such  as  the  use  and  repetition  of  expres- 
sions and  ideas  which  occur  no  where  else,  together  with  the  vague  meta- 
phorical assertion,  that  the  atmosphere  of  this  piece  is  entirely  different 
from  that  of  the  other  chapters,  always  excepting  ch.  5G  :  9  to  57  :  11,  which 
(we  may  almost  say,  of  course)  is  likewise  an  interpolation.  It  is  strange 
that  such  an  intellect  as  Ewald's  should  have  failed  to  perceive  that  all  this 
is  an  ill-disguised  confession  of  his  own  incapacity  to  trace  the  true  connex- 
ion in  a  difficult  portion  of  an  ancient  writing,  and  proceeds  upon  the  prin- 
ciple, which  even  he  would  hardly  venture  to  propound  in  terms,  that  it  is 
better  to  expunge  a  passage  from  the  text  than  to  acknowledge  its  obscurity 
or  leave  it  unexplained.  If  it  be  true,  as  he  asserts,  that  this  is  the  only 
way  in  which  the  existing  controversy  as  to  the  fifty-third  chapter  can  be 
settled,  it  had  better  not  be  settled  at  all.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that 
neither  Ewald's  reasoning  nor  his  authority  appear  to  have  made  any  con- 
verts to  this  neoteric  doctrine.  With  respect  to  the  frequent  repetitions 
which  he  charges  on  the  passage,  it  may  be  added  in  conclusion,  that  so 
far  from  being  rhetorical  defects  or  indications  of  another  author,  they  are 
used  with  an  obvious  design,  viz.  that  of  making  it  impossible  for  any  inge- 
nuity or  learning  to  eliminate  the  doctrine  of  vicarious  atonement  from  this 
passage,  by  presenting  it  so  often  and  in  forms  so  varied  and  yet  still  the 
same,  that  he  who  succeeds  in  expelling  it  from  one  place  is  compelled  to 
meet  it  in  another,  as  we  have  already  seen  to  be  the  case  in  the  comparison 
of  vs.  4  and  11,  as  interpreted  by  Hitzig  and  Gesenius.  Whether  the 
dreaded  inconvenience  is  more  bravely  met  or  more  effectually  remedied  by 
making  this  incorrigible  prophecy  still  older  than  the  rest  with  which  it 
stands  connected,  is  a  question  which  we  leave  to  the  decision  of  the  reader. 


CHAPTER    LI  V.  279 


CHAPTER    LIV. 

Instead  of  suffering  from  the  loss  of  her  national  prerogatives,  the  church 
shall  be  more  glorious  and  productive  than  before,  v.  1.  Instead  of  being 
limited  to  a  single  nation,  she  shall  be  so  extended  as  to  take  in  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth,  vs.  2,  3.  What  seemed  at  first  to  be  her  forlorn  and 
desolate  condition,  shall  be  followed  by  a  glorious  change,  v.  4.  He  who 
seemed  once  to  be  the  God  of  the  Jews  only,  shall  now  be  seen  to  be  the 
God  of  the  Gentiles  also,  v.  5.  The  abrogation  of  the  old  economy  was 
like  the  repudiation  of  a  wife,  but  its  effects  will  show  it  to  be  rather  a 
renewal  of  the  conjugal  relation,  v.  6.  The  momentary  rejection  shall  be 
followed  by  an  everlasting  reconciliation,  vs.  7,  8.  The  old  economy,  like 
Noah's  flood,  can  never  be  repeated  or  renewed,  v.  9.  That  was  a  tempo- 
rary institution  ;  this  shall  outlast  the  earth  itself,  v.  1 0.  The  old  Jerusalem 
shall  be  forgotten  in  the  splendour  of  the  new,  vs.  11,  12.  But  this  shall 
be  a  spiritual  splendour  springing  from  a  constant  divine  influence,  v.  13. 
Hence  it  shall  also  be  a  holy  and  a  safe  state,  v.  14.  All  the  enemies  of 
the  Church  shall  either  be  destroyed  or  received  into  her  bosom,  v.  15. 
The  warrior  and  his  weapons  are  alike  God's  creatures  and  at  his  disposal, 
v.  16.  In  every  contest,  both  of  hand  and  tongue,  the  Church  shall  be  tri- 
umphant, not  in  her  own  right  or  her  own  strength,  but  in  that  of  Him  who 
justifies,  protects,  and  saves  her,  v.  17. 

V.  1.  Shout  oh  ban-en,  (hat  did  not  hear,  break  forth  into  a  shout  and 
cry  aloud,  she  that  did  not  writhe  (in  childbirth)  ;  for  more  (are)  the  children 
of  the  desolate  than  the  children  of  the  married  (woman^,  saith  Jehovah. 
According  to  Grotius  and  some  later  writers,  the  object  of  address  is  the  city 
of  Jerusalem,  in  which  no  citizens  were  born  during  the  exile,  but  which  was 
afterwards  to  be  more  populous  than  the  other  cities  of  Judah  which  had  not 
been  reduced  to  such  a  state  of  desolation.  Besides  other  difficulties  which 
attend  this  explanation,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  observe  that  those  who  apply 
the  first  verse  to  the  city  of  Jerusalem  are  under  the  necessity  of  afterwards 
assuming  that  this  object  is  exchanged  for  another,  viz.  the  people, — a 
conclusive  reason  for  regarding  this  as  the  original  object  of  address,  espe- 
cially as  we  have  had  abundant  proof  already  that  tlic  Zion  or  Jerusalem 
of  these  Later  Prophecies  is  the  city  only  as  a  symbol  of  the  church  or 
nation. — Our  idiom  in   the  first  clause   would  require   didst  not  bear  and 


280  CHAPTERLIV. 

didst  not  urithe  ;  but  Hebrew  usage  admits  of  the  third  person.  Another 
Hebrew  idiom  is  the  expression  of  the  same  idea  first  in  a  positive  and  then 
in  a  negative  form,  barren  that  did  not  bear.  This  very  combination  occurs 
more  than  once  elsewhere.  (Judges  13  :  2.  Job  24  :  21.) — For  the  sense 
of  ns'i  "^naa,  see  above,  on  ch.  52  :  9  ;  and  for  that  of  '^^"='1'^  as  opposed  to 
nbsisa ,  compare  2  Sam.  13  :  20.  The  same  antithesis  here  used  occurs  in 
1  Sam.  2  :  5. 

V.  2.  Widen  the  2>^ace  of  thy  tent,  and  the  curtains  of  thy  dicellings 
let  them  stretch  out ;  spare  not  (or  hinder  it  not)  ;  lengthen  thy  cords  and 
strengthen  (or  make  fast)  thy  stakes.  As  in  the  parallel  passage  (ch.  49  : 
20,  21),  the  promise  of  increase  is  now  expressed  by  the  figure  of  enlarged 
accommodations.  The  place  may  either  be  the  area  within  the  tent  or  the 
spot  on  which  it  is  erected.  The  curtains  are  the  tent-cloths  stretched 
upon  the  poles  to  form  the  dwelling.  'Si^'^  >  though  strictly  a  generic  term, 
is  often  used  in  reference  to  tents,  and  particularly  to  the  tabernacle.  Some 
take  1:2^  as  a  neuter  or  reflexive  verb,  let  them  stretch  out  or  extend  them- 
selves ;  but  Kimchi  construes  it  with  those  loho  stretch,  and  Ewald  with  an 
indefinite  subject,  let  them  stretch.  That  this  verb  was  habitually  used  in 
this  connexion,  may  be  learned  from  2  Sam.  16  :  22.  -The  stakes  are  the 
tent-pins,  to  which  the  tent-cloths  are  attached  by  cords.  The  last  verb 
may  either  mean  take  stronger  pins,  or  fix  them  more  firmly  in  the  ground, — 
both  implying  an  enlargement  of  the  tent  and  a  consequently  greater  stress 
upon  the  cords  and  stakes. 

V.  3.  For  right  and  left  shalt  thou  break  forth  (or  spread),  and  thy 
seed  shall  possess  (or  disjjossess  or  inherit)  nations,  and  repeople  ruined  (or 
forsaken)  cities.  Kimchi  understands  right  and  left  as  geographical  terms 
equivalent  to  north  and  south,  the  east  and  west  being  represented  by  nations 
and  cities.  Knobel  gives  the  same  explanation  of  the  first  two,  but  accounts 
for  the  omission  of  the  other  two  by  saying  that  the  sea  was  on  the  west 
and  on  the  east  a  wilderness.  A.  far  more  natural  interpretation  of  the 
words  is  that  which  takes  right  and  left  as  indefinite  expressions  meaning 
on  both  sides  or  in  all  directions.  The  verb  ■j":!^  was  peculiarly  appropriate 
because  associated  with  the  promise  in  Gen.  28  :  14,  in  which  case  all  the 
cardinal  points  of  the  compass  are  distinctly  mentioned.  TiJ"]^  is  not  simply 
to  possess  but  to  inherit,  i.  e.  to  possess  by  succession,  which  in  this  case 
implies  the  dispossession  of  the  previous  inhabitants,  so  that  the  version  drive 
out,  given  by  Gesenius  and  others,  although  not  a  literal  translation,  really 
expresses  no  idea  not  expressed  in  the  original.  The  figurative  meaning  of 
the  terms,  as  in  many  other  cases,  is  evinced  by  an  immediate  change  of 
figure,  without  any  regard  to  mere  rhetorical  consistency.     The  same  thing 


CHAPTERLIV.  281 

which  is  first  represented  as  the  violent  expulsion  of  an  enemy  from  his 
dominions,  is  immediately  afterwards  described  as  the  restoration  of  deserted 
places,  unless  nisirs  be  supposed  to  <ftiean  forsaken  by  those  just  before 
expelled,  which  is  hardly  consistent  with  its  usage  as  applied  to  desolations 
of  long  standing. — The  whole  verse  is  a  beautiful  description  of  the  won- 
derful extension  of  the  church,  and  her  spiritual  conquest  of  the  nations. 

V.  4.  Fear  not,  for  thou  shalt  not  be  ashamed,  and  be  not  abashed,  for 
thou  shalt  not  blush  ;  for  the  shame  of  thy  youth  thou  shalt  forget,  and  the 
reproach  of  thy  widowhood  thou  shalt  not  remember  any  more.  Here,  as  in 
many  other  cases,  shame  includes  the  disappointment  of  the  hopes,  but  with 
specific  reference  to  previous  misconduct.  (See  Job  6  :  20.)  The  first 
clause  declares  that  she  has  no  cause  for  despondency,  the  second  disposes 
of  the  causes  which  might  seem  to  be  suggested  by  her  history.  The  essen- 
tial meaning  is,  thy  former  experience  of  my  displeasure.  The  figurative 
form  of  the  expression  is  accommodated  to  the  chosen  metaphor  of  a  wife 
forsaken  and  restored  to  her  husband.  The  specific  reference  of  youth 
to  the  Egyptian  bondage,  and  of  widowhood  to  the  Babylonian  exile,  is 
extremely  artificial,  and  forbidden  by  the  context. 

V.  5.  For  thy  husband  (is)  thy  Maker,  Jehovah  of  Hosts  (is)  his 
name  ;  and  thy  Redeemer  (is)  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  the  God  of  all  the 
earth  shall  he  be  called.  This  verse  is  marked  by  a  peculiar  regularity  of 
structure,  the  two  members  of  the  first  clause  corresponding  exactly  to  the 
similar  members  of  the  other.  In  each  clause  the  first  member  points  out 
the  relation  of  Jehovah  to  his  people,  while  the  second  proclaims  one  of 
his  descriptive  names.  He  is  related  to  the  church  as  her  Husbaiid  and 
Redeemer ;  he  is  known  or  shall  be  known  to  all  mankind  as  the  Lord  of 
Hosts  and  as  the  God.  of  the  ivhole  earth,  which  are  not  to  be  regarded  as 
equivalent  expressions.  As  the  Goel  oC  the  Jewish  institutions,  the  redeemer 
of  a  forfeited  inheritance,  was  necessarily  the  next  of  kin,  it  is  appropriately 
placed  in  opposition  to  the  endearing  name  of  husband  ;  and  as  the  title 
Lord  of  Hosts  imports  a  universal  sovereignty,  it  is  no  less  exactly  matched 
with  the  God  of  the  whole  earth.  But  this  last  phrase  expresses  the  idea 
of  universal  recognition. — There  is  no  grammatical  objection  to  the  usual 
interpretation  of  the  last  word  in  the  verse  as  meaning  he  is  called,  corre- 
sponding to  his  name  is  in  the  other  clause,  and  signifying,  in  the  Hebrew 
idiom,  he  is,  with  emphasis.  But  since  no  reason  can  in  that  case  be 
assigned  for  the  use  of  x'^l?"  instead  of  N'p?,  and  since  the  strict  translation 
of  the  future  strengthens  the  expression  by  transforming  a  description  into  a 
prophecy,  it  seems  best  to  retain  the  English  Version,  the  God  of  the  whole 
earth  shall  he  be  called,  i.  e.  he  shall  be  recognised  hereafter  in  the  character 


282  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  V . 

which  even  now  belongs  to  him.  (Comjjare  oh.  45 :  23  and  Rom.  14  :  11.) 
The  Targum  and  the  Vulgate,  Aben  Ezra  and  Kimchi,  take  T\l\'-;'^  in  its 
primitive  sense  o{  thy  lords  or  rulers;  but  this,  though  etymologically  right, 
is  less  agreeable  to  usage,  to  the  parallelism,  the  immediate  context,  and  the 
analogy  of  other  places  where  the  conjugal  relation  is  undoubtedly  referred 
to.  (See  especially  eh.  62  :  4,  5.)  The  form  of  this  word  and  Tj^i'S  is 
regarded  by  Gesenius  as  an  instance  of  the  pluralis  majestnticus,  while 
Maurer  makes  the  last  a  singular  form  peculiar  to  the  Hi'b  derivatives,  and 
supposes  the  other  to  be  merely  assimilated  to  it  by  a  species  of  paronomasia. 

V.  6.  f  07'  as  a  wife  forsaken  and  grieved  in  sjjirlt  has  Jehovah  called 
thee,  and  (as)  a  wife  of  youth,  for  she  shall  be  rejected,  said  thy  God. 
Reduced  to  a  prosaic  form  and  order,  this  verse  seems  to  mean,  that 
Jehovah  had  espoused  her  in  her  youth,  then  cast  her  off  for  her  iniquities, 
and  now  at  last  recalled  her  from  her  solitude  and  orief  to  be  his  wife  again. 
(Compare  Hosea  2:  4,1,  14,  16,  19.) — A  wife  of  youth,  not  merely  a 
young  wife,  but  one  married  early.  (See  Proverbs  5:18  and  Malachi 
2:  14.)  As  this  description  belongs  not  to  the  main  subject  but  to  the 
thing  with  which  it  is  compared,  there  is  no  propriety  in  making  youth 
mean  a  specific  period  in  the  history  of  Israel.  Tiie  sense  is  not  that  she 
had  been  wedded  to  Jehovah  in  her  youth  and  now  recalled,  but  that  he 
now  recalled  her  as  a  husband  might  recall  the  long  rejected  wife  of  his 
youth. — The  common  version  of  the  last  clause,  ivhen  thou  wast  refused,  is 
ungrammatical,  unless  we  take  ^^^"^  as  a  license  for  ''Oxan  like  ^i^n  in  ch. 
57  :  8,  and  such  anomalies  are  not  to  be  assumed  much  less  to  be  multiplied 
without  necessity.  Most  of  the  modern  writers  make  it  the  third  person,  but 
retain  the  same  construction  :  who  has  been  (or  lohen  she  has  been)  rejected. 
But  this,  besides  being  forced,  would  seem  to  require  the  praeter  not  the 
future,  which  Hitzig  sets  down  as  an  inaccuracy  of  the  writer.  Still  more 
unnatural  and  arbitrary  is  Luzzatto's  interrogative  construction:  'Can  the 
wife  of  one's  youth  be  thus  abhorred!  Surely  not,'  Ewald  gains  the  same 
sense  by  making  it  an  ironical  exclamation  :  and  the  wife  of  one's  youth — (as 
if  it  were  possible)  thai  she  could  be  treated  ivith  contempt !  All  these  expe- 
dients are  precluded  by  the  fact  that  we  obtain  a  good  sense  by  adhering  to 
the  proper  meaning  of  the  '^3  and  of  the  future,  simply  making  these  the 
words  of  Jehovah  at  the  time  of  her  rejection,  and  referring  "I'^x  to  the  same 
time  and  to  this  clause  alone,  instead  of  making  it  include  the  whole  verse, 
which  is  the  less  natural  because  the  first  clause  speaks  of  Jehovah  in  the 
fust  person.  Thus  understood,  the  last  clause  is  an  explanation  of  the  first, 
in  which  she  is  said  to  have  been  recalled  as  a  forsaken  wife,  and  that  a 
wife  of  youth,  because  her  God  had  said  to  her  at  that  time,  thou  shall  be 
rejected.     This  explanation,  while  it  simplifies  the  syntax,  leaves  the  mean- 


CHAPTERLIV.  233 

ing  of  the  verse  unaltered. — Henderson  calls  upon  the  reader  to  '•  mark  the 
paronomasia  in  iin^n?  and  ti^n^^s?. ."  Gesenius  goes  further  and  attempts  to 
copy  it  (^ein  vertriebnes  Weib  hetr'uhten  Herzens)  ;  while  Hitzig,  it  may  be 
for  that  very  reason,  doubts  whether  any  paronomasia  was  designed  at  all. 

V.  7.  In  a  little  moment  I  forsook  thee,  and  in  great  mercies  I  will 
gather  thee.  The  metaphor  is  here  carried  out  in  the  form  of  an  affectionate 
assurance  that  the  love  now  restored  shall  experience  no  further  interrup- 
tion. The  use  of  the  preterite  and  future  implies  an  intermediate  point  of 
view  between  the  opposite  treatments  here  described.  I  did  forsake  thee, 
and  now  I  am  about  to  gather  thee.  Hitzig  explains  this  last  expression 
by  the  analogy  of  Judges  19  :  15,  where  a  cognate  verb  means  to  receive 
into  one's  house.  So  Lowth  translates  it,  /  will  receive  thee  again,  and 
Ewald  in  like  manner.  Umbreit  still  more  expressively,  /  draiu  thee  to 
myself.  Knobel  applies  the  term  directly  to  the  people,  whose  scattered 
members  were  to  be  collected.  (See  ch.  27  :  12.  43  :  5.)  According  to 
Umbreit,  the  time  of  anger  is  called  little  in  comparison  with  the  provoca- 
tion offered  ;  according  to  Knobel,  in  comparison  with  the  favour  that  should 
follow,  which  agrees  far  better  with  the  parallelism  and  the  context.  Hitzig, 
however,  says  that  it  is  not  the  period  of  alienation  which  is  here  described 
as  short ;  but  the  anger  which  occasioned  it.  A  similar  antithesis  is  used 
by  David,  Ps.  30  :  6.  (Compare  Isaiah  26  :  20.)  Instead  of  great  mer- 
cies, Henderson  has  with  the  greatest  tenderness. — If  any  specific  applica- 
tion of  the  words  be  made,  it  must  be  to  the  momentary  casting  off  of  Israel 
which  seemed  to  accompany  the  change  of  dispensations.  The  confusion 
of  the  metaphors  in  this  whole  passage  springs  from  the  complexity  of  the 
relations  which  they  represent.  As  a  nation,  Israel  was  in  fact  cast  off; 
but  as  a  church,  it  never  could  be. 

V.  8.  In  a  gush  of  wrath  I  hid  my  face  a  moment  from  thee,  and  in 
everlasting  kindness  I  have  had  mercy  on  thee,  saith  thy  Redeemer,  Jehovah. 
The  idea  of  the  preceding  verse  is  again  expressed  more  fully.  The  word 
C|2ty  occurs  only  here.  The  older  writers  conjectured  from  the  context  that 
it  signified  a  short  time  or  a  little  quantity.  Rabbi  Menahem  is  quoted 
by  Jarchi  as  explaining  it  to  mean  heat  or  fury,  which  is  no  doubt  also 
merely  conjectural.  Schultens  explains  it  from  an  Arabic  analogy  as  mean- 
ing hardness  or  severity.  Rosenmiiller  and  Gesenius  identify  it  with  tr^v 
a  flood  or  inundation,  which  is  elsewhere  used  in  reference  to  anger  (Prov. 
7  :  24).  So  in  ch.  42  :  25,  the  wrath  of  God  is  said  to  have  been  poured 
out  upon  Israel.  According  to  Gesenius,  it  is  here  written  ^:ini.  only  for  the 
sake  of  the  resemblance  to  C]S|5  .  This  paronomasia  is  copied  by  Gesenius 
(in  der  Fluth  der  Zorngluth),  by  Hitzig  (in  derber  Herbe),  and  by  Ewald 


234  CHAPTERLIV. 

(oh  dcr  GroU  irar  voU).  We  do  not  find  that  any  of  these  writers  make 
the  rapid  recurrence  of  this  figure  in  so  short  a  space  an  argument  to  prove 
that  the  passage  was  written  by  a  different  author.  Ewald  gives  "^n^n-i  tlie 
sense  which  it  has  in  Kal,  and  renders  it,  I  love  thee.  This  is  undoubtedly 
implied,  but  the  sense  of  showing  mercy  is  required  not  only  by  usage  but 
by  the  context,  which  describes  the  relenting  of  one  previously  offended. — 
This  verse,  like  the  one  before  it,  is  a  general  description  of  the  everlasting 
favour  which  shall  drown  the  very  memory  of  former  alienations  between 
God  and  his  people.  The  modern  German  school  of  course  restrict  it  to 
the  Babylonish  exile.  Cocceius  extends  it  to  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment economy,  which  although  long  to  man  was  but  a  day  in  the  divine 
sight.  (Ps.  90:  4.)  Vitringa,  not  content  with  these  gratuitous  appropria- 
tions of  a  general  promise,  or  with  this  prosaic  disfiguration  of  an  exquisite 
poetical  conception,  undertakes  to  give  a  different  application  to  the  two 
verses,  applying  the  little  moment  of  v.  7  to  the  Babylonish  exile,  and  the 
angry  moment  of  v.  8  to  the  Syrian  persecution.  With  equal  reason  they 
might  be  pronounced  descriptive  of  the  Egyptian  and  Assyrian  bondage,  or 
of  the  Assyrian  and  the  Babylonian,  or  of  the  Syrian  and  the  Roman.  If, 
because  it  is  appropriate  to  one  of  these  events,  it  has  no  reference  to  any 
other,  then  they  all  may  be  successively  excluded,  and  with  equal  ease  all 
proved  to  be  the  subject  of  the  prophecy.  The  only  specific  application 
which  is  equally  consistent  with  the  form  of  the  expression  and  the  context 
is  the  one  suggested  in  the  note  upon  the  foregoing  verse. 

V.  9.  For  the  ivaters  of  Noah  is  this  to  me  ;  what  I  sivare  from  the 
waters  of  Noah  passing  again  over  the  earth  (i.  e.  against  their  passing, 
or,  that  they  should  not  pass),  so  I  have  sworn  from  being  angry  (that  I  will 
not  be  angry)  against  thee,  and  from  rebuking  (that  I  will  not  rebuke)  thee. 
The  assurance  of  the  preceding  verse  is  now  repeated  in  another  form. 
There  can  no  more  be  another  such  effusion  of  my  wrath  than  there  can  be 
another  deluge,  here  called  the  waters  of  Noah,  just  as  we  familiarly  say 
''  Noah's  flood."  The  security  in  this  case,  as  in  that,  is  a  divine  oath  or 
solemn  covenant,  like  that  recorded  Gen.  8  :  21  and  9:11.  Vitringa, 
as  usual,  converts  a  simile  into  a  symbol,  and  endeavours  to  enumerate  the 
points  of  similarity  between  the  world  and  the  deluge,  the  church  and  the 
ark.  It  is  only  upon  this  erroneous  supposition  that  such  passages  as  Ps. 
124  :  4,  5,  can  be  regarded  as  illustrative  parallels.  Such  minute  coinci- 
dences any  reader  is  at  liberty  to  search  out  for  himself ;  but  the  text  men- 
tions only  one  point  of  comparison  between  the  two  events,  namely,  that 
neither  can  occur  again.  The  Prophet  does  not  say  that  God's  displeasure 
with  the  church  is  a  flood  which  shall  never  be  repeated,  but  that  it  shall 
never  be  repeated  any  more  than  the  flood.    When  our  Lord  says  it  is  easier 


CHAPTERLIV.  285 

for  a  camel  to  go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle  than  a  rich  man  into  heaven, 
no  one  thinks  of  running  a  comparison  between  the  rich  man  and  the  camel, 
or  inquiring  what  the  hump  or  the  double  stomach  signifies  ;  because  the 
text  suggests  not  a  general  analogy  between  the  rich  man  and  the  camel, 
but  a  specific  one  confined  to  one  particular.  In  the  case  before  us,  that 
particular,  as  we  have  seen  already,  is  the  certainty  that  neither  of  the  things 
compared  can  ever  be  repeated.  This  certainty  does  not  arise,  as  Ewald 
seems  to  think,  from  any  natural  necessity,  or  universal  law  forbidding  such 
expurgatory  I'evolutions  to  occur  more  than  once,  but,  as  the  text  expressly 
tells  us,  from  the  oath  and  covenant  of  God. — Instead  of  "'^  "'S  one  or  two 
manuscripts  have  '^'^'S,  all  in  one  word,  meaning  as  (he  days  of  Noah,  and 
Kimchi  speaks  of  this  division  as  existing  in  some  ancient  codices  of  his  day. 
This  reading  likewise  appears  in  all  the  ancient  versions  but  the  Septuagint, 
and  is  preferred  by  Lowth  (as  in  the  Jays  of  Noah).  It  is  also  a  remark- 
able coincidence  that  this  expression  occurs  twice  in  the  New  Testament 
(Matt.  24  :  37.  1  Pet.  3  :  -20),  but  not  in  reference  to  this  place  or  to  the 
comparison  here  instituted.  All  the  latest  writers  seem  to  be  in  favour  of 
adhering  to  the  connnon  text,  which  is  probably  the  only  safe  conclusion, 
although  some  of  the  reasons  which  have  been  assigned  are  not  of  much 
weight.  Henderson,  for  instance,  says  that  "  the  conjunction  ^3  could  not 
have  been  omitted,"  yet  supposes  two  ellipses  of  the  preposition  3  in  this 
one  sentence,  and  in  this  one  clause  of  it.  Another  argument  which  some 
urge,  namely,  that  the  words  T!''^^.  are  repeated  afterwards,  may  be  em- 
ployed as  well  on  one  side  as  the  other.  For  it  might  be  said,  with  some 
plausibility  at  least,  that  such  a  repetition,  not  for  the  sake  of  parallelism, 
but  in  the  same  part  of  the  sentence,  is  unusual,  and  also  that  the  presence 
of  these  two  words  afterwards  may  easily  have  led  to  an  error  of  transcrip- 
tion. The  true  ground  for  adhering  to  the  coinmon  text  is  the  traditional 
authority  of  almost  every  codex  in  existence,  confirmed  by  that  of  the  oldest 
version,  and  by  its  yielding  a  perfectly  good  sense. — There  is  no  need  of 
supplying  any  preposition  before  icaters,  as  Gesenius  does  ((c/e  bty  den 
Wassern  NoaKs);  since  the  meaning  is  that  this  is  the  same  thing  as  the  flood, 
or  just  such  another  case,  in  what  respect  is  afterwards  cxphiined.  The 
closest  copy  of  the  original  is  Ewald's,  Noah^s  JVasscr  ist  mir  dies.  The 
plural  waters  is  connected  with  the  pronoun  in  the  singular,  simply  because 
it  is  used  only  in  the  plural.  The  pronoun  this  is  explained  by  Jarchi  to 
mean  this  oath,  by  Kimchi  this  captivity,  by  Knobel  this  effusion  of  my 
wrath,  etc.  The  best  construction  is  to  take  it  in  the  widest  sense,  as 
meaning  this  case,  this  affair,  or  the  like.  Hendewerk  appears  to  be  alone 
in  supplying  the  future  tense  of  the  verb  (^ihis  shall  be)  instead  of  the  present 
(this  is).  On  the  privative  use  of  the  preposition  p  ,  see  ch.  5:6,  8  :  II, 
where  it  has  respect  to  negative  commands  or  prohibitions.      To  me  does 


2SG  CHAPTERLIV. 

not  simply  mean  in  uiy  view  or  opinion,  but  expresses  similarity  of  obliga- 
tion ;  tbe  oath  was  as  binding  in  the  one  case  as  the  other. — Vitringa  and 
Lowth  make  *iisjx  a  particle  of  time,  when  I  stvare.  Gesenius  and  the  other 
modern  writers  take  it  as  a  particle  of  comparison,  corresponding  to  "3  just 
as  the  full  expression  "^^xs  does  in  ch.  14  :  24,  and  as  "I'ix  itself  does  in 
Jer.  33  :  22.  Hendewcrk  understands  it  strictly  as  a  relative,  of  ivhich  I 
sivare  ;  in  which  "3  is  not  a  parallel  expression,  but  simply  continues  the 
discourse.  The  same  construction  of  ""ijx  might  be  retained  without  entirely 
destroying  the  antithesis,  by  rendering  the  former  ivhat.  As  if  he  had  said. 
'  what  1  sware  then,  that  T swear  now,'  but  impaired  the  exact  correspondence 
of  the  terms  by  changing  that  to  so.  It  is  a  matter  of  indifference  whether 
the  second  verb  be  rendered  I  have  sworn  or  /  sioear  ;  since  even  in  the 
former  case  it  means /Aaue  noz^  siror/t,  as  distinguished  from  the  former 
swearing  which  he  had  just  mentioned. — Rebuke  must  here  be  taken  in  the 
strong  and  pregnant  sense  which  it  has  in  ch.  17  :  13.  50  :  2.  51  :  20,  and 
very  generally  throughout  the  Old  Testament,  as  signifying  not  a  merely 
verbal  but  a  practical  rebuke.  There  is  no  need,  however,  of  depart- 
ing from  the  literal  translation  with  Gesenius,  who  translates  it  curse, 
and  Hitzig,  who  translates  it  punish.  Umbreit  has  threaten,  which  is 
nearer  to  the  strict  sense,  but  excludes  the  actual  infliction,  which  is  a 
necessary  part  of  the  idea. — That  this  is  not  a  general  promise  of  secu- 
rity, is  plain  from  the  fact  that  the  church  has  always  been  subjected  to 
vicissitudes  and  fluctuations.  Nor  is  there  any  period  in  her  history  to 
which  it  can  be  properly  applied  in  a  specific  sense,  except  the  change  of 
dispensations,  which  was  made  once  for  all  and  can  never  be  repeated. 
That  the  church  shall  never  be  again  brought  under  the  restrictive  institu- 
tions of  the  ceremonial  law,  is  neither  a  matter  of  course  nor  a  matter  of 
indifference,  but  a  glorious  promise  altogether  worthy  of  the  solemn  oath  by 
which  it  is  attested  here. 

V.  10.  For  the  mountains  shall  move  and  the  hills  shall  shake ;  but  my 
favour  from  thee  shall  not  move,  and  my  covenant  of  peace  shall  not  shake, 
saith  thy  pitier  Jehovah.  Vitringa's  observation,  that  the  futures  in  the  first 
clause  must  not  be  so  translated,  because  this  would  imply  that  hills  and 
mountains  might  be  moved,  whereas  they  are  here  represented  as  immov- 
able, affords  a  curious  illustration  of  the  tendency  among  interpreters  to  sub- 
stitute what  they  would  have  said  for  what  the  writer  has  said.  If  the  first 
clause  does  not  literally  mean  that  the  mountains  and  the  hills  shall  move, 
that  idea  cannot  be  expressed  in  Hebrew.  This  is  indeed  the  customary 
method  of  expressing  such  comparisons.  (See  above,  on  ch.  40  :  8  and 
49  :  15.)  The  meaning  is  not  that  God's  promise  is  as  stable  as  the  moun- 
tains, but  that  it  is  more  so  ;  they  shall  be  removed,  but  it  shall  stand  for 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  V .  287 

ever.  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  of  translating  tlie  verb  Id  them  shake 
or  they  may  shake,  as  some  of  the  latest  writers  do.  Still  more  gratuitous  is 
the  present  form  given  to  the  verbs  by  Gesenius,  as  if  they  expressed  a  tiling 
of  constant  occurrence.  Even  Vitringa  is  compelled  to  admit  that  the  moun- 
tains and  hills  in  this  place  are  not  symbols  of  states  and  empires,  but  natural 
emblems  of  stability.  (See  Deut.  33  :  15.  Ps.  65  :  7.  125:1,2.) — Gesenius 
supposes  an  allusion  in  covenant  of  peace  to  the  covenant  with  Noah  (Gen. 
9  :  8,  11).  The  phrase  denotes  a  covenant,  i.  e.  a  divine  promise  or  engage- 
ment, securing  the  enjoyment  of  peace,  both  in  the  strict  sense  and  in  the 
wide  one  of  prosperity  or  happiness.  (Compare  v.  13.  ch.  53  :  5.  Ezek. 
34  :  25.  37  :  26.)  The  suffix,  as  in  many  other  cases,  qualifies  the  whole 
phrase,  not  the  last  word  merely.  The  covenant  of  my  peace  does  not  give 
the  sense  so  fully  as  my  covenant  of  peace,  i.  e.  my  peace-giving  covenant, 
or  as  Rosetimiiller  phrases  it,  meum  pacificum  foedus. — The  participle  in 
^^n^^  is  construed  as  a  noun,  and  the  whole  phrase  means  thy  pitier.  The 
force  of  the  expression  is  impaired  by  the  circumlocution  of  the  common 
version,  the  Lord  that  hath  mercy  on  thee,  still  more  by  Lowtli's  diluted 
paraphrase,  Jehovah  loho  heareth  toivard  thee  the  most  tender  affection. 

V.  11.  Wretched,  storm-tossed,  comfortless!  Behold  I  am  laying  (or 
about  to  lay)  thy  stones  in  antimony,  and  I  will  found  thee  upon  sapphires. 
The  past  afflictions  of  God's  people  are  contrasted  with  the  glory  which 
awaits  them,  and  which  is  here  represented  by  the  image  of  a  city  built  of 
precious  stones,  and  cemented  with  the  substance  used  by  oriental  women 
in  the  staining  of  their  eyelids.  (2  Kings  9  :  30.  Jer.  4  :  30.)  This  eye- 
paint,  made  of  stibium  or  antimony,  may  be  joined  with  sapphires  as  a 
costly  substance,  commonly  applied  to  a  more  delicate  use  ;  or  there  may 
be  allusion,  as  Hitzig  thinks,  to  the  likeness  between  stones  thus  set  and 
painted  eyes  :  either  of  which  suppositions  is  more  probable  than  that  of 
Henderson,  viz.  that  the  idea  meant  to  be  conveyed  is  simply  that  of  beauty 
in  general,  for  which  a  thousand  more  appropriate  expressions  might  have 
been  employed.  The  stones  meant  are  not  corner  or  foundation-stones,  but 
all  those  used  in  building.  There  is  something  singular,  though  not  perhaps 
significant,  in  the  application  to  these  stones  of  a  verb  elsewhere  used  only 
in  reference  to  animals.  Knobel  gravely  observes  that  this  verse  can 
hardly  be  considered  as  expressing  a  real  expectation  of  the  Prophet ;  as  if 
it  were  a  literal  description  of  a  city  built  with  gems  instead  of  hewn  stones, 
and  stibium  instead  of  mortar.  Kimchi  indeed  thinks  it  possible  that  all 
this  may  be  verified  hereafter  in  the  literal  Jerusalem.  Abarbenel  more 
reasonably  looks  for  its  fulfilment  in  a  figurative  or  spiritual  sense.  Those 
writers  who  insist  upon  applying  the  first  verse  of  this  chapter  to  the  city  as 
a  city,  although  not  particularly  named  there,  are  compelled  to  understand 


288  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  V  , 

the  Olio  before  us  of  the  people,  notwithstanding  the  minuteness  and  preci- 
sion of  (he  references  to  a  city.  If  the  city  as  such  is  not  meant  when 
stones  and  cement,  gates  and  walls,  are  mentioned,  how  much  less  when 
none  of  these  particulars  appear,  but  every  thing  suggests  a  different  sub- 
ject.— "^23  is  rendered  by  Jerome  per  ordinem,  and  in  the  Septuagint 
av&Qay.tt,  as  if  it  were  a  kind  of  precious  stone,  as  it  appears  to  be  in  1  Chr. 
29  :  2.  But  the  modern  lexicographers  identify  it  with  the  Greek  q.vxog 
and  the  Latin  fuctis,  i.  e.  face  or  eye-paint ;  and  even  in  Chronicles  it  may 
mean  nothing  more  than  ornamental  stones.  Ludolf  supposes  the  clause  to 
mean  that  the  stones  should  be  powdered  with  antimony.  Luzzatto  like- 
wise assumes  a  hypallage,  and  explains  'I  will  lay  thy  stones  in  stibium' 
to  mean  I  will  lay  it  on  them.  Henderson's  version  of  tT;!?b  (^tossed)  is 
insufficient,  as  both  etymology  and  usage  require  a  reference  to  storm  or 
tempest.  Kimchi  and  Saadias  apply  it  specifically  to  the  exile,  Jarchi  to 
the  storms  of  sorrow  in  general.  Rosenmiiller  explains  it  as  a  passive  parti- 
ciple put  for  rr^V.b"^  5  Gesenlus  as  the  usual  Kal  participle  of  ^?o.  It  is 
atrreed  that  i^^^ns  is  the  contracted  Pual  participle  for  J^^nro  ,  like  "T^n"?  '^^ 
Hos.  1  :  6,  8. — ISIaurer  notes  this  as  an  example  of  the  peculiar  sense  in 
which  this  writer  used  the  verb  ens.  (Compare  ch.  49:  J3.  51  :  3,  12. 
52  :  9.)  Knobel  restricts  the  first  clause  to  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  espe- 
cially by  Nebuchadnezzar  !  Ewald,  very  unnecessarily,  proposes  to  amend 
the  text  by  reading  in  the  last  clause  ~i?^x  thy  foundations.  If  this  be  the 
specific  sense  intended,  which  is  doubtful,  it  is  sufficiently  conveyed  already 
by  the  common  reading. 

V.  12.  And  1  ivUl  make  thy  hatllements  (or  pinnacles)  ruby,  and  thy 
gates  to  (he)  spai-kling  gems,  and  all  thy  border  to  (be)  stones  of  pleasure  (or 
delight).  The  splendid  image  of  the  preceding  verse  is  here  continued  and 
completed.  The  precise  kinds  of  gems  here  meant  are  not  of  much  impor- 
tance. The  essential  idea,  as  appears  from  the  etymology  of  the  names,  is 
that  of  sparkling  brilliancy.  The  exact  meaning  of  "is*]?  was  unknown 
even  in  Jerome's  time.  Aquila  and  Theodotion  retain  the  Hebrew  word, 
in  which  they  are  followed  by  Cocceius.  rrr-o'i"  is  explained  by  Aben 
Ezra  and  Kimchi  to  mean  windows  or  other  apertures  admitting  the  light  of 
the  sun.  But  the  modern  writers  generally  make  it  a  poetical  description 
of  the  battlements  and  spires  of  a  city. — The  Septuagint  and  Vulgate 
explain  n-px  ""inx  as  denoting  carved  or  sculptured  stones  ;  but  its  obvious 
connexion  with  the  verb  rri;^  favours  the  modern  explanation,  sparkling 
gems. — The  last  phrase  is  a  more  generic  term,  including  all  the  others,  and 
equivalent  to  our  expression,  precious  stones.  So  too  ^^3.^  may  be  collec- 
tive, and  denote  the  w  hole  congeries  of  buildings  or  their  parts  ;  although 
interpreters  are  more  inclined  to  make  it  mean  the  outer  wall  of  a  fortified 


CHAPTERLIV.  289 

city,  which  is  described  as  built  of  the  same  costly  materials.  But  Gesenius 
thinks  it  possible  that  there  may  be  allusion  to  1  Kings  10  :  27,  and  that 
the  clause  may  represent  the  ground  within  the  limits  of  the  city  as  strewn 
with  precious  stones  instead  of  pebbles. — The  same  interpreter  regards  the 
}>  in  the  last  clause  as  a  sign  of  the  accusative,  but  Kimchi  explains  b  ''ri^b 
as  meaning  'I  will  change  into  or  render.'  Hitzig  thinks  it  would  have  been 
^'  bequemer,"  and  Knobel  ^^  passender"  if  the  writer,  instead  of  saying  that 
their  gates  should  be  turned  into  precious  stones,  had  said  they  should  be 
made  of  them. — Vitringa  of  course  puts  a  specific  sense  on  every  part  of  the 
description,  understanding  by  the  T('Q  of  the  preceding  verse  the  doctrine  of 
Christ's  blood,  by  the  gates  the  synods  of  the  church,  by  the  battlements 
its  advocates  and  champions,  etc.  Lowth,  with  better  taste  and  judgment, 
says  that  "these  seem  to  be  general  images  to  express  beauty,  magnificence, 
purity,  strength,  and  solidity,  agreeably  to  ibe  ideas  of  the  eastern  nations, 
and  to  have  never  been  intended  to  be  strictly  scrutinized,  or  minutely  and 
particularly  explained,  as  if  they  had  each  of  them  some  precise  moral  or 
spiritual  meaning." 

V.  13.  And  all  thy  children  disciples  of  Jehovah,  and  great  (or  plenti- 
ful) the  peace  of  thy  children.  Ewald  makes  the  sentence  simply  descrip- 
tive, by  supplying  are  in  the  present  tense.  Most  other  writers  supply 
shall  be,  and  thus  make  it  a  prediction  or  a  promise.  a"':2 ,  when  used  as  a 
distinctive  term,  means  sons  ;  but  it  is  constantly  employed  where  we  say 
children. — The  common  version,  taught  of  God,  which  Lowth  changes 
into  taught  by  God,  though  not  erioneous,  is  inadequate  ;  since  1^53^  is  not 
a  participle  but  a  noun,  used  elsewhere  to  denote  a  pupil,  follov/er,  or  disci- 
ple. (See  ch.  8  :  16.)  The  promise  is  not  one  of  occasional  instruction, 
but  of  permanent  connexion  with  Jehovah,  as  his  followers  and  partakers  of 
his  constant  teaching.  That  the  words  are  applicable  to  the  highest  teach- 
ing of  which  any  rational  being  is  susce{)tible,  to  wit,  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
making  known  the  Father  and  the  Son,  we  have  our  Saviour's  own  author- 
ity for  stating.  (See  John  6  :  44,  and  compare  Matt.  23  :  8.  Heb.  8:11. 
1  John  2  :  27.)  Paul  too  describes  believers  as  OsodtSay.roi  in  relation  to 
the  duties  of  their  calling.  (1  Thess.  4  :  9.)  Similar  promises  under  the 
Old  Testament  are  given  in  Jer.  31  :  34  and  elsewhere.  Gesenius  restricts 
the  words  to  the  promise  of  prophetic  insjjiration,  the  want  of  which  is 
lamented  in  Lam.  2  :  9.  Ps.  74  :  9,  and  the  renewal  of  it  promised  in  Joel 
3:1.  But  this  restriction  is  regarded  as  unauthorized  even  by  Maurer.  As 
in  ch.  43  :  9,  all  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  are  included.  The  consequence  of 
this  blessed  privilege  is  peace,  no  doubt  in  the  widest  sense  of  spiritual  wel- 
fare and  prosperity.  (John  14  :  27.  Phil.  4  :  7.)  Knobel  restricts  the 
promise  to  the  people  of  Jerusalem,  and  Hendewerk  declares  that  it  was 

19 


290  CHAPTER    L  I  V . 

broken  in  the  days  of  Anliocluis  Epiphancs.  To  prevent  the  tautological 
recurrence  of  Tf  :2  ,  Koppe  reads  ~"^  in  the  first  clause  and  Doderlein  in 
the  second,  while  J.  D.  Michaelis,  for  a  different  reason,  makes  the  change 
in  both.  Kocher  and  Rosen rniiller  cite  examples  of  such  repetition  from 
ch.  16:7.  55:4,  and  55:  10,  together  with  Virgil's  famous  line,  Amho 
Jiorentes  aetatibus  Arcades  amho.  Such  precedents  were  surely  not  required 
to  justify  a  bold  but  beautiful  expression  from  the  charges  brought  against 
it  by  pedantic  rhetoricians. — Umbrcit  supposes  that  this  ver^'e  contains  an 
explanation  of  the  striking  figures  in  the  one  before  it.  Hitzig  compares  the 
hist  clause  with  the  corresponding  part  of  ch.  GO  :  21,  and  thy  people  all  of 
them  are  righteous,  which  idea  is  expressed  here  in  the  next  verse. 

V.  14.  In  righteousness  shnlt  thou  be  established :   be  far  from  oppres- 
sion, for  thou  shalt  not  fear,  and  from  destruction,  for  it  shall  not   come 
near   to   thee.     An   additional    promise  of  complete   security,  made  more 
emphatic  by  its  repetition   in   a   variety  of  forms.     By  righteousness  J.  H. 
Michaelis  understands  the  righteousness  or  faithfulness  of  God,  securing  the 
performance  of  his  p;on:iises  ;   Vitringa,  the  justice  of  the  government  itself; 
Rosenmiiller  and   the   other  modern   writers,  the  practice  of  righteousness 
among   the   people.     The   first,    however,   comprehends   the  others   as   its 
necessary  consequences,  public  and  private  virtue  being  always  represented 
in  Scripture  as  the  fruit  of  divine  influence.      (Compare  ch.  1  :  27.  9  :  6. 
11:5.    16:  5.) — The   modern    grammarians    acquiesce   in    Aben    Ezra's 
explanation  of  "."3^"  ^^^  a  Hithpacl  form  like  yiy-''-.  ,  ch.  52  :  5. — Of  the  next 
clause  there  are  several    interpretations.     The    Septuagint,    Peshito,    and 
Vulo-ate,  understand    it  as   a    warning   or  dissuasion    from   the   practice  of 
oppression.     But  this  docs  not  agree  with  the  context,   which  is  evidently 
meant  to  be  consolatory  and  encouraging.     Still  more  unnatural  is  the  opin- 
ion of  Cocceius,  that  pii^p  here  means  spiritual  robbery,  such  as  robbing  God 
of  his  glory,  the  soul  of  its  salvation,  etc.  etc.     Jerome  arbitrarily  renders  it 
calumniam.     The -explanation  which  has  been  most  generally  acquiesced  in, 
is  the  one  proposed  by  Kimchi,  who  takes  P\^  in  a  passive  sense,  i.  e.  as 
meaning  the  experience  of  oppression,  and  supposes  the  imperative  to  repre- 
sent the  future,  or  a  promise  to  be  clothed  in  the  form  of  a  command  :   '  Be 
far  from  oppression,  i.  e.  thou  shalt  be  far  from  it.'     Examples  of  this  idiom 
are  supposed  to  occur  in  Gen.  42  :  18.  Deut.  32  :  50.  Prov.  20  :  13.    But 
as  this  makes  it  necessary  to  give  '"2  the  sense  of  yea   with    Lowth,  or  of 
therefore  with  Vitringa,  Gesenius  and  the  later  writers  choose  to  adhere  to 
the  strict  sense  of  the  imperative,  and  give  pajs"  in  this  one  place  the  mean- 
ing of  anxiety,  distress,  which  they  suppose  to  be  the  sense  of  i^I^^^  in  ch. 
38  :  14.    The  ground  of  this  gratuitous  assumption  is  the  parallel  expression 
nnn^  consternation,  fear,  v/hich  seems  to  require  in  this  place  an  analogous 


CH  AP  T  E  R    L  I  V.  291 

affection  of  the  mind.  It  will  be  found,  however,  on  investigation,  that  there 
are  several  instances  in  whicli  i^nn?3  cannot  possibly  mean  ftar  (e.  g.  Ps. 
89  :  41.  Prov.  10  :  14.  13  :  3.  18  :  7)  ;  while  in  every  place  where  it 
occurs,  perhaps  exce[)ting  Jer.  48  :  39,  the  other  sense  destruction  is  entirely 
appropriate.  On  the  soundest  principles  of  lexicography,  this  meaning  is 
entitled  to  the  preference,  and,  if  adopted  here,  forms  an  accurate  parallelism 
to  P''^p  in  the  sense  which  it  uniformly  has  elsewhere  (e.  g.  in  ch.  30  :  12 
and  59  :  13),  viz.  oppression  or  violent  injustice.  That  the  other  term  is 
stronger,  only  adds  to  the  expression  the  advantage  of  a  climax.  There  is 
no  need,  however,  of  explaining  the  imperative  as  a  future,  like  the  older 
writers,  or  of  taking  "3  in  any  but  its  usual  and  proper  sense.  Be  far  from 
oppression  is  not  a  promise  of  exemption  from  it,  for  that  follows  in  the  next 
clause,  which  the  modern  interpreters  correctly  understand  as  meaning,  thou 
hast  no  cause  to  fear.  The  other  woids  are  well  explained  by  Knobel  as 
relating  to  the  feelings  of  the  person  here  addressed.  Be  fiu'  fiom  oppres- 
sion, i.  e.  far  from  apprehending  it.  The  whole  may  then  be  paraphrased 
as  follows:  '  When  once  established  by  the  exercise  of  righteousness  on  my 
part  and  your  own,  you  may  put  far  off  all  dread  of  oppression,  for  you  have 
no  cause  to  fear  it,  and  of  destruction,  for  it  shall  not  come  nigh  you.' — 
With  the  promise  of  this  clause,  compare  ch.  32  :  16  and  62  :  12. — Knobel 
and  Hendewerk  are  actually  able  to  persuade  themselves  that  this  verse 
contains  a  specific  promise  that  Jerusalem  should  never  be  successfully 
besieged  again.  The  truth  of  the  promise,  in  its  true  sense,  is  vindicated 
by  the  fact  that  it  relates  to  the  course  of  the  new  dispensation  as  a  whole, 
with  special  reference  to  its  final  consummation. 

V.  15.  Z<o,  they  shall  gather,  they  shall  gather,  not  at  my  sign  (or 
signal).  Who  has  gathered  against  thee  ?  He  shall  fall  away  to  thee. 
The  promise  of  the  preceding  verse  is  here  so  modified  as  to  provide  for 
every  possible  contingency.  If  enemies  should  be  assembled,  it  will  not  be 
by  divine  command  (compare  ch.  10:5.  47  :  6),  and  they  shall  end  by 
coming  over  to  the  side  of  those  whom  they  assail.  This,  on  the  whole, 
appears  to  be  the  meaning,  although  every  expression  has  received  a  differ- 
ent explanation.  Gesenius  gives  )^:  the  sense  of  if,  as  in  Chaldee,  and 
notes  it  as  a  proof  of  later  date :  to  \\hich  it  may  be  answered,  first,  that  his 
own  examples  include  some  in  the  oldest  books,  e.  g.  Ex.  8  :  22  ;  then, 
that  the  assumptign  of  this  meaning  in  the  present  case  is  wholly  giatuilous ; 
and  lastly,  that  it  is  a  dubious  question  whether  any  such  usage  of  the  word 
exists  at  all.  Cocceius  follows  Jarchi  in  giving  ^=13  the  sense  of  fear,  which 
it  sometimes  has,  e.  g.  in  Deut.  1  :  17  and  Psalm  22  :  24.  The  Septua- 
gint  and  Targum  give  it  the  still  more  frequent  sense  of  '  sojourning,  dwelling 


392  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  V . 

as  a  stranger,'  and  apply  the  clause  to  proselytes.  In  like  manner  Gousset, 
followed  by  Rosenmiiller,  understands  the  words  to  nnean,  that  no  one  who 
sojourns  with  Israel  shall  remain  a  stranger  to  the  true  religion.  Tremellius 
makes  it  mean  'contend,'  and  Ewald,  '  stir  up  bitterness,'  both  apparently 
resorting  to  the  cognate  nnj  as  a  source  of  illustration.  Most  interpreters 
agree  with  Kimchi  in  giving  "iis  the  same  sense  here  as  in  Ps.  56  :  7.  59 :  4,  on 
which  places  see  Hengstenberg's  Commentary. — There  is  also  a  difference 
as  to  the  construction.  Luther  makes  the  whole  verse  one  interrogation. 
Gesenius,  as  we  have  already  seen,  makes  the  first  clause  conditional. 
Others  translate  it  as  a  concession,  '  let  them  gather.'  But  the  simplest  and 
most  natural  construction  is  to  translate  "^iJ^  as  a  future  proper.  They 
shall  indeed  (or  no  doubt)  gather.  The  promise  is  not  that  they  should 
never  be  assailed,  but  that  they  should  never  be  conquered. — The  Targum 
explains  D2S  to  mean  in  the  end ;  but  most  writers  understand  it  as  a  simple 
negative.  (See  above,  on  ch.  52  :  4.)  "'""'X^  is  regarded  by  Gesenius  as 
another  pioof  of  later  date,  the  preposition  rx  being  confounded  with  the 
objective  particle.  But  here  again  examples  of  the  same  analogy  are  found 
as  early  as  Lev.  15  :  18,  24,  and  Josh.  23  :  15.  It  is  not  the  occasional 
occurrence  of  this  form  but  its  habitual  use  that  marks  the  later  writers,  as 
is  well  observed  by  Havernick,  who  explains  the  case  before  us  as  an  effect 
of  the  pause  accent,  while  in  the  one  below  (ch.  59  :  21)  he  maintains  that 
mx  is  the  noun  meaning  sign  (Einleitung  I.  pp.  198,  222)  ;  which  last 
explanation  is  still  more  applicable  here,  not  by  my  sign  or  signal  being  not 
only  perfectly  in  keeping  w  ith  the  usage  of  the  same  figure  elsewhere,  but 
yielding  substantially  the  same  sense  which  the  word  has  according  to  the 
common  explanation,  namely,  not  by  my  authority  or  not  at  my  command. 
(Compare  "^s^^  Hos.  7  :  14.)  Hitzig  tlirows  these  words  (""nisia  GSs)  into 
a  parenthesis — '  which  is  not  from  me,'  and  Ewald  gives  them  the  force  of  a 
proviso — 'only  not  from  me,'  i.  e.  no  attack  shall  be  successful,  provided  it 
is  made  without  my  authority.  The  same  writer  takes  "''^  in  its  usual  sense 
as  an  interrogative  pronoun,  while  Gesenius  and  others  make  it  mean  ivho- 
ever.  (See  above,  on  ch.  50  :  10.)  Vitringa  and  the  English  Version  separate 
T.^?  from  the  following  verb,  and  take  the  latter  absolutely,  'he  shall  fall,' 
i.  e.  perish.  Knobel  obtains  the  same  sense  without  a  violation  of  the 
accents,  by  supposing  '?;>  ^s:  to  be  synonymous  with  ""zth  bs: ,  'he  shall  fall 
before  thee.'  But  the  former  phrase  is  determined  by  a  settled  usage  to 
denote  the  act  of  falling  away  or  deserting  to  an  enemy.  (See  1  Chron. 
12  :  19,  20.  2  Chron.  15  :  9.  Jer.  21  :  9.)  In  one  case  (1  Sam.  29  :  3)  the 
same  idea  seems  to  be  expressed  by  the  verb  when  absolutely  used.  This 
explanation  of  the  last  words  is  as  old  as  the  Septuagint  (iTzl  at:  xaracpev^ov- 
Tfltt)  and  Vulgate  (adjungetur  iibi). 


CH  AP  TE  R    LI  V.  293 

V.  16.  Lo,  I  have  created  the  smith,  hloiving  into  the  fire  of  coal,  and 
bringing  out  a  iveapon  for  his  work ;  and  I  have  created  the  waster  to 
destroy.  The  general  meaning  evidently  is  that  God  can  certainly  redeem 
his  pledge,  because  all  instruments  and  agents  are  alike  at  his  disposal  and 
under  his  control.  He  is  not  only  the  maker  of  the  weapons  of  war,  but 
the  maker  of  their  maker,  as  well  as  of  the  warrior  who  wields  them. — The 
pronoun  in  both  clauses  is  emphatic.  It  is  I  (and  not  another)  who  created 
them. — The  common  version  of  the  second  member,  that  hjoiveth  the  coals 
in  the  fire,  is  inconsistent  with  the  masoretic  pointing  and  accentuation,  which 
require  ens  'rx  to  be  construed  in  regimine,  as  meaning  a  coal  fire  in  oppo- 
sition to  an  ordinary  fire  of  wood.  The  same  preposition  is  elsewhere  used 
as  a  connective  between  this  verb  and  the  object  blown  upon  or  at  (Ezek. 
37  :  9),  and  in  one  other  place  at  least  in  reference  to  the  same  act  of  blow- 
ing into  fire  (Ezek.  22:  21),  an  exact  description  of  the  process  even  at  the 
present  day.  A  simihir  glimpse  into  the  ancient  forge  or  smithy  has  already 
been  afforded  in  the  scornful  attack  upon  the  worshippers  of  idols,  ch. 
41  :  6. — Bringing  out  does  not  mean  bringing  out  of  his  workshop  or  his 
hands,  as  Knobel  explains  it,  but  bringing  into  shape  or  into  being,  precisely 
as  we  say  bringing  forth,  producing,  although  commonly  in  reference  to 
animal  or  vegetable  life.  Perhaps,  however,  it  would  be  still  better  to 
explain  it  as  meaning  out  of  the  fire,  in  which  case  there  would  be  a  fine 
antithesis  between  blowing  into  it  and  bringing  the  wrought  iron  out  of  it. — 
•^^3  may  denote  any  instrument,  but  here  derives  from  the  connexion  the 
specific  sense  o^  loeapon.  (See  above,  on  ch.  52  :  11.)  The  next  phrase 
has  been  variously  understood.  Interpreters  are  much  divided  as  to  the 
antecedent  of  the  suffix  pronoun.  Some  of  the  older  writers  understand  it 
as  applying  to  the  instrument  itself,  bringing  forth  a  weapon  for  its  tcork, 
i.  e.  fitted  for  the  work  of  destruction.  Others  suppose  it  to  refer  by  pro- 
lepsis  to  the  warrior  or  destioyer  who  is  mentioned  in  the  last  clause,  bring- 
ing forth  a  iveapon  for  his  work  or  use.  A  still  greater  number  understand 
it  as  referring  to  the  smith  or  armourer  himself.  Besides  the  modern  Eng- 
lish versions,  which  are  either  unmeaning  or  inaccurate, — according  to  his 
work  (Lowth);  by  his  labour  (Noycs),  as  the  result  of  his  ivork  (Barnes)^ 
— this  class  includes  the  ingenious  construction  of  the  words  by  Ewald,  bring- 
ing forth  a  weapon  as  his  own  work,  ivhereas  I  made  the  deadly  weapon 
for  destruction.  According  to  this  interpretation,  r''n':3-a  the  destroyer  is  a 
poetical  description  of  the  weapon  before  mentioned  ;  whereas  most  inter- 
preters apply  it  to  the  warrior  who  wields  it,  as  if  he  had  said,  I  make  the 
weapon  of  destruction  and  I  also  make  the  waster  to  destroy  with  it.  Both 
these  hypotheses  agree  in  making  the  destruction  mentioned  to  be  that  of 
enemies  in  battle,  one  ascribing  it  directly  to  the  weapon  and  the  other  to 
the  combatant.     But  Gesenius  follows  Jarchi  and  Kimchi  in  supposing  the 


294  CHAPTERLIV. 

destruction  here  meant  to  be  that  of  the  instruments  themselves,  as  if  be  had 
said,  I  create  the  weapons  of  war  and  I  also  create  the  destroyer  to  destroy 
them.  Gesenius  seems  to  think  that  this  construction  is  required  by  the 
repetition  of '^2;s'i ,  as  clearly  indicating  an  antithesis;  but  this  is  equally 
secured  by  Ewald's  version,  and  even  in  the  common  and  more  natural  con- 
struction, the  repeated  pronoun  has  its  proper  emphasis.  '  It  is  I  that  create 
the  smith  who  makes  the  instruments,  and  it  is  also  I  that  create  the 
destroyer  who  employs  them.' 

V.  17.  Every  weapon  (that)  shall  be  formed  against  thee  shall  not  pros- 
per, and  every  tongue  (that)  shall  rise  with  thee  in  judgment  thou  shall  con- 
demn. This  is  the  heritage  of  the  servants  of  Jehovah,  and  their  right- 
eousness from  me,  saith  Jehovah.  The  common  version  of  the  first  clause 
expresses  the  same  thought  in  the  English  idiom,  wo  weapon  that  is  formed 
against  thee  shall  prosper,  a  form  of  speech  which  does  not  exist  in  Hebrew, 
and  can  only  be  supplied  by  combining  negative  and  universal  terms.  The 
expression,  though  ambiguous,  is  determined  by  the  context.  It  cannot 
mean  that  only  some  of  the  weapons  formed  should  take  effect — which 
might  be  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  in  Englisli — because  in  the  affirmative 
clause  which  follows,  and  which  must  be  co-extensive  in  its  meaning,  there 
is  no  such  ambiguity,  it  being  said  expressly  that  every  tongue  shall  be  con- 
demned. Another  difference  of  idiom  here  exemplified  has  reference  to  the 
ellipsis  of  the  relative  pronoun,  which  in  English  is  familiarly  omitted  when 
the  object  of  the  verb,  but  never  when  its  subject.  Every  weapon  they 
form  would  be  perfectly  intelligible  ;  but  every  weapon  is  formed  (for  which 
is  formed)  would  convey  a  wrong  idea. — Shall  not  prosper,  \.  e.  shall  not 
take  effect  or  accomplish  its  design.  Vitringa  needlessly  supposes  a  litotes 
or  meiosis,  as  if  the  words  meant  that  the  weapon  should  itself  be  destroyed  ; 
but  this  is  not  expressed,  even  if  it  is  implied,  which  may  be  questioned. — 
To  rise  or  stand  in  judgment,  literally /or  or  with  respect  to  judgment,  is  to 
appear  before  a  judgment-seat,  to  invoke  the  decision  of  a  judge.  JVith 
thee  may  either  denote  simply  simultaneous  action,  that  of  standing  up 
together,  or  it  may  have  the  stronger  sense  against  thee,  as  it  seems  to  have 
above  in  v.  15,  and  as  it  has  in  our  expressions  io  fight  witJi  or  to  go  to  law 
with.  Tlie  tongue  is  here  personified,  or  used  to  re[)resent  the  party  litigant 
whose  only  weapon  is  his  speech.  Lowth  translates  "^S'''ir~n  thou  shall 
obtain  thy  cause,  which  is  the  true  sense,  but  requires  the  insertion  of 
against  before  every  tongue,  which  in  Hebrew  is  governed  directly  by  the 
verb.  For  the  judicial  or  forensic  usage  of  this  verb,  see  above,  on  ch. 
50  :  9. — Hitzig  explains  what  is  here  said  of  litigation  as  a  mere  figure  for 
war,  which  is  literally  described  in  the  foregoing  clause  ;  and  Knobel  cites  a 
case  (1  Sam.  14  :  47)  in  which  the  verb  "-i^ty^  is  applied  to  conquest.     It 


CHAPTERLIV.  295 

is  also  easy  to  deduce  the  one  sense  from  the  other,  by  assuming  as  the 
intermediate  link  the  idea — not  confined  to  ancient  nations — that  success  in 
arms  is  a  criterion  of  right  and  wrong,  the  very  principle  on  which  the  wager 
of  battle  and  the  ordeal  of  the  duel  rested.  But  in  this  case  it  is  far  more 
satisfactory  and  natural,  instead  of  making  one  clause  figurative  and  the  other 
literal,  to  understand  both  either  literally  or  figuratively  as  a  comprehensive 
description  of  all  controversy  or  contention.  Kimchi  supposes  these  two 
clauses  to  reduce  all  opposition  and  hostility  to  that  of  word  and  that  of 
deed  ;  but  there  may  also  be  allusion  to  the  obvious  distinction  between 
warfare  in  its  military  and  its  civil  forms,  or  between  what  is  properly  called 
war  and  litigation.  In  all  these  varied  forms  of  strife  it  is  predicted  that  the 
church  shall  be  victorious.  (Compare  Rom.  8  :  37  and  2  Cor.  2:  14.) 
And  this  security  is  represented  as  her  heritage  or  lawful  possession  and  as 
her  right,  i.  e.  what  is  due  to  her  from  God,  as  the  judge  of  the  whole  earth, 
who  must  do  right.  Lowth  and  Ewald  understand  it  to  meB.n  justification  : 
'this  security  shall  prove  that  God  acquits  or  justifies  me  from  the  charges 
brought  against  me  by  my  enemies.'  Vitringa  gives  the  Hebrew  word  the 
simple  sense  jus,  or  that  to  which  the  party  is  entitled.  The  diluted  sense 
of  blessins:  or  prosperity,  which  some  of  the  later  writers  prefer  even  here, 
no  longer  needs  a  refutation.  The  English  Version  makes  this  last  an  inde- 
pendent clause,  their  righteousness  is  of  me  ;  which  is  wholly  unnecessary, 
and  affords  a  less  appropriate  sense  than  the  construction  above  given, 
which  is  the  one  now  commonly  adopted. — According  to  Ewald  this  verse 
is  an  explanation  of  the  promise  at  the  close  of  ch.  53.  Hendewerk  goes 
further  and  identifies  the  heritage  of  this  verse  with  the  division  of  the  spoil 
in  that,  and  the  collective  servants  here  named  with  the  individual  servant 
mentioned  there.  Knobel  is  still  more  explicit,  and  asserts  that  the  Prophet, 
having  been  disappointed  in  his  hope  that  all  Israel  would  return  from  exile, 
now  discards  the  use  of  the  word  servant  and  confines  himself  to  that  of  the 
plural.  The  only  colour  for  this  singular  assertion  is  the  fact,  no  doubt 
remarkable,  that  we  read  no  more  of  the  '  Servant  of  Jehovah'  who  has  been 
so  often  introduced  before,  but  often  of  his  'servants.'  It  may  no  doubt  be 
said  in  explanation  of  this  fact,  that  the  Prophet  has  completed  his  descrip- 
tion of  that  august  person  under  his  various  characters  and  aspects,  but  has 
still  much  to  say  of  his  followers  or  servants.  But  a  full  explanation  is 
afforded  only  by  the  hypothesis  assumed  throughout  this  exposition,  that  the 
Servant  of  Jehovah  is  a  name  ajiplied  both  to  the  Body  and  the  Head, 
sometimes  to  both  in  union,  sometimes,  as  in  ch.  53,  to  one  exclusively  ;  from 
which  it  naturally  follows  that  as  soon  as  he  has  reached  the  final  exaltation 
of  INIessiah,  and  withdrawn  him  from  our  view,  the  Prophet  thenceforth 
ceases  to  personify  his  members,  and  applies  to  them  the  ordinary  plural 
desiirnation  of 'Jehovah's  servants.' 


-296  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  V , 


CHAPTER    L  V . 

By  the  removal  of  the  old  reslrictions,  the  church  is,  for  the  first  time, 
open  to  the  whole  world,  as  a  source  or  medium  of  the  richest  spiritual 
blessings,  v.  1.  It  is  only  here  that  real  nourishment  can  be  obtained,  v.  2. 
Life  is  made  sure  by  an  oath  and  covenant,  v.  3.  The  Messiah  is  a  witness 
of  the  truth  and  a  commander  of  the  nations,  v.  4.  As  such  he  will  be 
recognised  by  many  nations  who  before  knew  nothing  of  the  true  religion, 
v.  5.  These  are  now  addressed  directly,  and  exhorted  to  embrace  the  offered 
opportunity,  v.  6.  To  this  there  is  every  encouragement  afforded  in  the 
divine  mercy,  v.  7.  The  infinite  disparity  between  God  and  man  should 
have  the  same  effect,  instead  of  hindering  it,  vs.  8,  9.  The  commands  and 
promises  of  God  must  be  fulfilled,  vs.  10,  1  1.  Nothing  therefore  can  prevent 
a  glorious  change  in  the  condition  of  the  world  under  the  dispensation  of  the 
Spirit,  V.  12.  This  blessed  renovation,  being  directly  pronjotive  of  God's 
glory,  shall  endure  for  ever,  v.  13. 

V.  1.  Ho  every  thirsty  one,  come  ye  to  the  waters  ;  and  he  to  whom 
there  is  no  money,  come  ye,  buy  (food)  and  cat ;  and  come,  buy,  without 
money  and  ivithout  price,  ivine  and  milk.  The  promises  contained  in  the 
preceding  chapters  to  the  church,  are  now  followed  by  a  general  invitation 
to  partake  of  the  blessings  thus  secured.  Water,  milk,  and  wine,  are  here 
combined  to  express  the  ideas  of  refreshment,  nourishment,  and  exhilaration. 
Under  these  figures  are  included,  as  Calvin  well  observes,  all  things  essen- 
tial to  the  spiritual  life.  The  Targum  restricts  the  terms  to  intellectual 
supplies  :  '  whoever  will  learn  let  him  come  and  learn.'  The  same  applica- 
tion is  made  by  Aben  Ezra  and  Kimchi,  and  Viiringa  admits  that  the 
language  is  highly  appropriate  to  the  Gentiles  who  were  seeking  after  wis- 
dom. (I  Cor.  1  :  22.)  But  the  benefits  here  offered  must  of  course  bear 
some  proportion  to  the  means  by  which  they  were  secured,  viz.  the  atoning 
death  of  the  Messiah  and  the  influences  of  his  Spirit.  Among  the  earlier 
writers  Grotius  alone  restricts  the  passage  to  the  period  of  the  Babylonish 
exile.  Even  the  Rabbins  understand  it  as  relating  to  their  present  disper- 
sion. Grotius's  further  limitation  of  the  passage  to  the  teachings  of  Jeremiah, 
as  a  rich  supply  offered  to  the  heathen,  is  of  course  rejected  by  the  modern 
Germans,  not  so  much  because  of  its  absurdity  as  on  account  of  its  recognis- 


CHAPTERLV.  297 

ing  Isaiah  as  the  author.  They  adhere,  liowever,  to  his  Babylonian  theory, 
and  task  their  powers  of  invention  to  explain  the  general  terms  of  this 
gracious  invitation  in  accordance  with  it.  Thus  Hendewerk  regards  the 
chapter  as  an  intimation  to  the  exiles  that  they  should  be  freed  as  soon  as 
they  were  brought  into  a  proper  state  of  mind,  together  with  a  promise  that 
when  once  restored  they  should  obtain  for  nothing  in  their  own  land  what 
they  could  not  even  buy  for  money  in  the  land  of  their  oppressors.  In  like 
manner  Knobel  understands  the  Prophet  as  declaring  the  conditions  upon 
which  the  exile  was  to  cease,  and  promising  to  those  who  should  return  the 
enjoyment  of  unparalleled  abundance  in  the  Holy  Land.  It  is  easy  to  per- 
ceive that  this  specific  explanation  of  a  passage  in  itself  unlimited  is  far  more 
easy  than  the  unauthorized  extension  of  one  really  specific,  because  in  the 
former  case  there  is  nothing  in  the  passage  itself  which  can  be  urged  against 
a  limitation  which  is  only  false  because  it  is  gratuitous.  The  best  refuta- 
tion is  afforded  by  the  ease  with  which  a  thousand  other  limitations,  once 
assumed,  might  be  brought  into  seeming  agreement  with  the  terms  of  the 
prediction.  If,  for  example,  some  new  critic,  still  more  intrepid  than  his 
predecessors,  should  maintain  that  tliis  book  is  of  later  date  than  the  Baby- 
lonian exile,  having  been  written  at  the  period  of  the  Maccabees,  or  even 
in  the  days  of  Josephus,  whatever  difficulties  might  arise  from  definite  allu- 
sions to  anterior  events  in  other  places,  it  would  require  but  little  ingenuity 
to  reconcile  the  foregone  conclusion  with  the  general  terms  of  such  a  pro- 
phecy as  that  before  us.  The  hypothesis  once  granted,  the  details  would 
all  seem  to  follow  of  course.  The  impartial  interpreter  is  therefore  bound 
to  resist  all  such  unauthorized  restrictions  and  to  give  the  Prophet's  words 
their  full  scope,  as  relating  to  the  benefits  which  God  proposed  from  the 
beginning  to  bestow  upon  the  nations  through  the  medium  of  his  church. 
The  mixed  or  half-way  theory  of  Henderson  that  this  passage  relates  to  the 
Babylonish  exile  and  also  to  the  reign  of  the  Messiah,  has  all  the  inconve- 
niences of  both  the  others  without  the  advantages  of  either. — Most  of  the 
modern  writers  follow  Jarchi  in  explaining  ^"in  as  a  mere  particle  of  invita- 
tion, which  is  variously  expressed  by  Luther  (^icohlan  !),  Gesenius  (auf!^, 
De  Wette  (ha!),  etc.  Maurer  insists,  however,  on  the  usual  and  strict 
•sense  of  the  particle  as  expressing  pity  for  the  exiles  (heu.  alas  !),  not  only 
here  but  in  Zech.  2  :  10,  11. — s^^  is  not  properly  a  participle  (^thirsting), 
but  a  verbal  adjective  (^aihirst  or  thirsty).  Vitringa  strangely  makes  it 
neuter  (pmne  sitiens),  although  the  very  nature  of  the  invitation  points  out 
persons  as  the  object  of  address,  and  although  this  is  the  only  form  in  which 
an  address  to  persons  could  have  been  expressed  ;  whereas  if  a  distinction 
were  designed,  the  neuter  would,  according  to  the  Hebrew  idiom,  be  repre- 
sented by  the  feminine.  The  combination  of  the  singular  (every  one)  with 
the  plural  verb  (come  ye)  may  be  either  an  idiomatic  license  or  intended  to 


298  CHAPTERLV. 

extend  the  call  to  every  individual. — The  reference  to  the  water  of  baptism, 
whicli  some  of  the  Fathers  found  in  this  verse,  is  excluded  by  the  fact  that 
the  water  here  meant  is  not  water  for  washing  but  water  to  be  drunk. — 
And  he,  after  the  universal  expression  eve7-y  one,  does  not  add  a  new  idea, 
but  explains  the  one  expressed  already,  and  is  therefore  equivalent  to  even 
he  in  English.  The  same  remark  applies  to  the  and  before  the  second  come, 
which  is  not  incorrectly  rendered  yea  come  in  the  common  version. —  To 
ivhom  there  is  not  money  is  the  only  equivalent  in  Hebrew  to  our  phrase 
ivho  has  no  money.  Instead  of  this  generic  term  Lowth  retains  the  original 
meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word,  silver,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Ewald  and 
Umbreit. — "ia(ij  is  not  to  buy  in  general,  but  to  buy  food,  or  still  more  spe- 
cifically to  buy  grain  or  breadstufFs.  It  is  here  absolutely  used,  as  in  Gen. 
41  :  57.  42  :  2,  5.  Henderson's  paraphrase  (^procure)  is  too  indefinite, 
and  not  at  all  needed  to  remove  the  seeming  incongruity  of  buying  without 
money  or  any  other  price.  This  apparent  contradiction  was  intended  by 
the  writer  to  express  in  the  strongest  manner  the  gratuitous  nature  of  the 
purchase.  M^ine  and  milk  are  combined,  either  as  necessities  or  luxuries, 
by  Jacob  in  Gen.  49  :  12. — The  images  of  this  verse  are  essentially  the 
same  with  those  in  ch.  12  :  3.  25  :  6.  62  :  8,  9.  65  :  13.  John  4  :  14. 
7  :  37.  Rev.  22  :  17. — Sanctius,  in  order  to  connect  this  chapter  with  the 
one  before  it,  supposes  the  idea  to  be  that  of  a  feast  provided  in  the  habita- 
tion which  is  there  described  as  having  been  enlarged.  Vitringa  thinks  it 
better  to  call  up  the  image  of  a  market  and  a  public  fountain.  Neither  of 
these  conceptions  would  spontaneously  occur  to  any  ordinary  reader. 

V.  2.  fVhy  will  ye  weigh  money  for  (that  which  is)  not  bread,  and 
your  labour  for  (that  which  is)  not  to  satiety  1  Hearken,  hearken  unto 
me,  and  eat  (that  which  is)  good,  and  your  soul  shall  enjoy  itself  in  fatness. 
The  gratuitous  blessings  offered  by  Messiah  are  contrasted  with  the  costly 
and  unprofitable  labours  of  mankind  to  gain  the  same  end  in  another  way. 
It  was  not  that  they  refused  food,  nor  even  that  they  were  unwilling  to  buy 
it ;  but  they  mistook  for  it  that  which  was  not  nourishing.  In  the  first 
clause  there  is  reference  to  the  primitive  custom  of  weighing  instead  of 
counting  money,  from  which  have  arisen  several  of  the  most  familiar  denomi- 
nations, such  as  the  Hebrew  shekel,  the  Greek  talent,  the  French  livre,  and 
the  English  pound.  The  essential  idea  here  is  that  of  paying.  Bread,  as 
the  staff  of  life,  is  here  and  in  many  other  cases  put  for  food  in  general. — 
Labour,  as  in  ch.  45  :  14,  means  the  product  or  result  of  labour.  It  is  well 
expressed  by  Umbreit  (euer  Ermiihetes).  Ewald's  translation  (ewer  Er- 
spartes)  rather  suggests  the  idea  of  that  which  is  saved  or  hoarded,  whereas 
the  writer  seems  to  have  in  view  the  immediate  expenditure  of  what  is 
earned. — The  emphatic  repetition  of  the  verb  to  hear  may  be  variously 


CHAPTER    LV.  299 

expressed  in  English  as  denoting  to  hear  dihgently,  attentively,  by  all  means, 
or  to  purpose;  but  the  best  translation,  because  it  may  be  considered  as 
including  all  the  rest,  is  that  which  copies  most  exactly  the  peculiar  form  of 
the  original.  The  old  mode  of  doing  this  by  joining  the  participle  with 
the  finite  verb  {hear'kening  ye  shall  hearken)  is  at  once  less  exact  and  less 
expressive  than  the  simple  repetition  used  by  Ewald  elsewhere,  although 
here  he  introduces  the  word  rather  (yielmehr  hort). — The  mention  of  the 
soul  admits  of  two  explanations.  We  may  give  the  Hebrew  word  its  fre- 
quent sense  of  appetite,  exactly  as  the  appetite  is  said  in  common  parlance 
to  be  gratified,  indulged,  pampered,  mortified,  etc.  This  is  a  good  sense  in 
itself,  but  less  in  keeping  with  the  rest  of  the  description  than  another  which 
may  be  obtained  by  supposing  that  the  soul  is  mentioned  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  that  the  hunger  and  the  food  referred  to  are  not  bodily  but  spiritual. 
Most  of  the  modern  writers  explain  ^^x  as  an  imperative  used  for  the  future 
according  to  a  common  Hebrew  idiom.  (See  ch.  45  :  22  and  Gen.  42  :  18.) 
But  there  is  no  need  of  departing  from  the  strict  construction  which  makes 
^^3i<  a  command.  The  promise  is  not  that  if  they  hearkened  they  should  eat, 
but  that  if  they  hearkened  and  ate  they  should  be  happy. — Good  is  em- 
phatic, meaning  that  which  is  truly  good,  in  opposition  to  the  no-bread  of 
the  first  clause,  which  Vitringa  and  the  later  writers  take  as  a  peculiar  com- 
pound phrase  like  fij-xb  (ch.  10  :  15),  Vx-xb  and  mi-xb  (ch.  31  :  3).  Fat, 
by  a  figure  common  in  all  languages,  is  put  for  richness  both  of  food  and 
soil.  (See  ch.  5:1.  Ps.  36  :  9.  63  :  6.  Job  36  :  16.)  There  is  some- 
thing almost  laughable  in  Rosenmiiller's  saying  that  the  orientals  are 
extremely  fond  of  gross  food,  when  the  fact  is  notoriously  otherwise,  and 
such  a  charge  has  often  been  alleged  against  the  Germans  either  truly  or 
falsely.  Luther  degrades  the  text  itself  by  rendering  it  shall  grow  fat.  As 
a  sample  of  the  opposite  extreme  of  false  refinement,  we  may  give  Lowth's 
paraphrase,  your  soul  shall  feast  itself  with  the  richest  delicacies. — The 
application  of  the  figures  is  self-evident  upon  the  general  hypothesis  before 
assumed.  Aben  Ezra  and  Kimchi,  who  suppose  the  blessing  offered  to  be 
purely  intellectual,  apply  the  first  clause  to  foreign  or  exotic  wisdom  (nrrp 
PV'?d:i).  But  the  hardest  task  devolves  on  those  who  understand  the  passage 
as  relating  exclusively  to  the  deliverance  of  Israel  from  Babylon.  In  what 
sense  could  the  exiles  there  be  said  to  spend  their  money  for  what  was  not 
bread,  and  their  labour  for  what  did  not  satisfy  ?  Koppe  was  brave  enough 
to  make  it  refer  literally  to  the  bad  bread  which  the  Jews  were  com])e]led 
to  eat  in  Babylonia.  Hitzlg  only  ventures  to  make  this  a  part  of  the 
calamity  described,  which  he  explains,  with  Gesenius,  as  consisting  in  the 
slavery  to  which  they  were  subjected,  not  as  tributaries  merely,  but  as 
labourers  without  reward.  (Compare  Josh.  9  :  27.  1  Kings  9:21.)  Maurer 
refers  the  clause  to  the  expensive  worship  of  idols,  from  whom  no  favours 


300  CHAPTER    L  V. 

were  obtained  in  recompense.  (See  eh.  4G  :  6,  7.)  Knobel  sees  merely  a 
strong  contrast  between  Babylon,  where  the  Jews  spent  much  without 
enjoyment  or  advantage,  and  the  Holy  Land,  where  they  should  enjoy  much 
and  spend  nothing.  The  last  he  might  consistently  regard  as  a  mere  vision- 
ary expectation  ;  but  the  only  proof  which  he  adduces  of  the  fact  first  men- 
tioned is  the  reference  to  Israel's  oppression  in  ch.  14:3.  47  :  6.  51  :  14. 
A  comparison  of  these  interpretations  with  the  true  one  will  show  how 
much  is  gained  by  the  assumption  of  the  Babylonian  theory,  and  how  strong 
the  motive  must  be  which  induces  men  of  ingenuity  and  learning  to  adopt 
it  in  spite  of  the  embarrassments  with  which  it  is  encumbered. 

V.  3.  Incline  your  ear  and  come  unto  me,  hear  and  your  soul  shall  live 
(or  let  it  live),  and  I  will  make  ivith  you  an  everlasting  covenant,  the  sure 
mercies  of  David.  This  is  obviously  a  repetition  of  the  same  offer  in  ano- 
ther form  ;  which  shows  that  the  two  preceding  verses  cannot  have  respect 
to  literal  food  or  bodily  subsistence.  Here  again  the  use  of  the  word  soul 
necessarily  suggests  the  thought  of  spiritual  life,  and  this  sense  is  admitted  here 
by  Kimchi  and  Abarbenel.  Neither  of  the  animal  life  nor  of  the  appetite 
could  it  be  said  that  it  should  live.  The  abbreviated  form  ^1t^l  may  either 
give  the  future  an  imperative  sense  or  be  taken  as  a  poetical  substitute  for 
the  full  form  of  the  future  proper.  The  regular  construction  of  n-'"ia  n'lS 
is  with  ny .  That  with  b,  according  to  Vitringa,  simply  means  a  promise  ; 
according  to  Gesenius,  an  engagement  on  the  part  of  a  superior.  (See  ch. 
61:8.  Josh.  9  :  15.  24  :  25.)  There  is  no  need  of  assuming  a  zeugma  in 
the  last  clause,  with  Gesenius,  or  supposing  n'^s  to  include  the  idea  of 
bestowing,  with  Knobel  ;  since  the  mercies  of  David  are  not  directly  go- 
verned by  that  verb,  but  simply  added  as  an  explanation  of  the  everlasting 
covenant.  As  if  he  had  said,  I  will  make  with  you  an  everlasting  covenant 
which  shall  be  the  same  with  the  mercies  of  David.  Of  this  phrase,  which 
is  also  used  by  Solomon  (2  Chr.  6  :  42),  there  are  three  interpretations. 
The  rabbins  and  Grotius  understand  it  to  mean  favours,  like  those  which 
were  enjoyed  by  David.  Cocceius  regards  David  as  a  name  of  the  Mes- 
siah, as  in  Ezek.  34  :  23,  24,  to  which  he  adds  Hos.  3:5;  but  this  may  be 
understood,  with  Hitzig,  as  merely  meaning  David's  house  or  family.  The 
third  explanation,  and  the  one  most  commonly  adopted,  is,  that  the  mercies 
of  David  means  the  mercies  promised  to  him,  with  particular  reference  to 
2  Sam.  7  :  8-16.  (Compare  1  Chr.  17  :  1 1,  12  and  Psalm  89  :  3,  4.)  As 
the  main  theme  of  this  promise  was  a  perpetual  succession  on  the  throne  of 
David,  it  was  fulfilled  in  Christ,  to  whom  it  is  applied  in  Acts  13  :  34. 
(Compare  Is.  9  :  6  and  Luke  1  :  32,  33.)  The  Greek  word  oaia  there 
used  is  borrowed  from  the  Septuagint  Version,  and  is  so  far  correct  as  it 
conveys  the  idea  of  a  sacred  and  inviolable  engagement.     That  the  promise 


CHAP  T  E  R    L  V.  301 

to  David  was  distinct  from  that  respecting  Solomon  (1  Chr.  22  :  8-13),  and 
had  not  reference  to  any  immediate  descendant,  Henderson  has  shown  from 
1  Chr.  17  :  12-14.  Thus  understood,  the  text  contains  a  solemn  assurance 
that  the  promise  made  to  David  should  be  faithfully  performed  in  its  original 
import  and  intent.  Hence  the  mercies  of  David  are  called  sure,  i.  e.  sure 
to  be  accomplished  ;  or  it  might  be  rendered  faithful,  credible,  or  trusted, 
without  any  material  effect  upon  the  meaning.  With  this  interpretation  of 
the  verse  may  be  compared  that  of  Knobel,  who  explains  it  as  a  promise 
that  the  theocratic  covenant  should  be  restored  (as  if  it  had  been  abrogated), 
or  of  Rosenmiiller,  who  supposes  it  to  have  been  given  to  console  the  exiles 
under  the  despondency  arising  from  the  ruin  of  the  House  of  David  during 
the  captivity,  and  the  apparent  violation  of  the  promise  which  had  long 
before  been  given  to  himself.  So  far  as  there  is  any  truth  in  tliis  interpre- 
tation, it  is  but  a  small  part  of  the  full  sense  of  the  passage  as  relating  to 
the  everlasting  reign  of  the  Messiah. 

V.  4.  Lo,  (ffs)  a  witness  of  7ialions  I  have  given  him,  a  chief  and 
commander  of  nations.  The  emphasis  appears  to  be  on  nations,  which  is 
therefore  repeated  without  change  of  form.  The  essential  meaning  is  the 
same  as  that  of  ch.  49  :  6,  viz.  that  the  Messiah  was  sent  to  be  the  Saviour 
not  of  the  Jews  only  but  also  of  the  Gentiles.  His  relation  to  the  latter  is 
expressed  by  three  terms.  First  he  is  a  witness,  i.  e.  a  witness  to  the  truth 
(John  18  :  37)  and  a  witness  against  sinners  (Mai.  3  :  5).  The  same  office 
is  ascribed  to  Christ  in  Rev.  1:5.  3:  14.  (Compare  1  Tim.  6:  13.) 
The  application  of  this  verse  to  the  Messiah,  therefore,  is  entirely  natural  if 
taken  by  itself.  But  an  objection  is  presented  by  the  fiict  that  the  Messiah 
is  not  named  in  the  foregoing  context.  It  is  hardly  an  adequate  solution  to 
affirm  with  Vitringa  that  the  verse  must  be  connected  with  the  fifty-third 
chapter,  and  the  fifty-fourth  considered  parenthetical.  Cocceius  refers  the 
suffixes  to  David  in  v.  3,  which  he  explains  there  as  a  name  of  the  Messiah. 
The  same  resort  is  not  accessible  to  Henderson,  who  arbitrarily  makes 
David  in  the  third  verse  mean  the  ancient  king  and  in  the  fourth  the  Mes- 
siah,— an  expedient  which  may  be  employed  to  conquer  any  difficulty. 
All  the  modern  Germans  except  Umbreit  understand  the  verse  before  us  as 
describing  the  honours  actually  put  upon  king  David.  Lo,  I  gave  him  as 
a  witness  of  the  nations,  a  leader  and  commander  of  the  nations.  This  is 
certainly  the  simplest  and  most  natural  construction  of  the  sentence,  but 
one  not  without  its  difficulties.  According  to  general  analogy,  the  inteijec- 
tion  "iv]  has  reference  not  to  a  past  event,  but  to  one  either  ])resent  or  future. 
This  argument  from  usage  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  tiiat  1^  at  the  beginning 
of  the  next  verse  does  undoubtedly  rehite  to  the  future,  and  that  the  connex- 
ion of  the  verses  is  obscure  and  abrupt  if  that  befoie  us  be  referred  to  David. 


302  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  V. 

Another  difficulty  Is,  that  David  could  not  with  truth  be  so  emphatically 
styled  the  chief  or  leader  of  the  nations.  For  although  he  did  subdue  some 
foreign  tribes,  they  did  not  constitute  the  main  part  of  his  kingdom,  and  the 
character  in  which  the  Scriptures  always  represent  him  is  that  of  a  theo- 
cratic king  of  Israel.  Another  difficulty  in  relation  to  the  use  of  the  term 
witness  is  evaded  by  supposing  "i", ,  in  this  one  place,  to  mean  a  ruler 
(Gesenius)  or  a  legislator  (Maurer).  Ewald's  translation  of  the  word  by 
law  seems  to  be  an  inadvertence.  This  violation  of  a  perfectly  defined  and 
settled  usage  would  be  treated  by  these  writers  in  an  adversary  as  a  proof 
of  ignorance  or  mala  fides.  The  only  shadow  of  evidence  which  they 
adduce  from  usage  or  analogy,  is  the  assertion,  equally  unfounded,  that  the 
verbal  root  sometimes  means  to  enjoin,  and  the  collateral  derivatives  ri>i"i5 
and  tTi»  laws  or  precepts.  The  utmost  that  can  be  established  by  a  philo- 
logical induction  is,  that  in  some  cases  the  alleged  sense  would  be  relevant, 
whereas  the  proper  one  of  testimony  is  in  every  case  admissible.  If  in  the 
face  of  these  facts  we  may  still  invent  a  new  sense  for  a  word  which  has 
enouffh  already  to  account  for  every  instance  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  there 
is  no  such  thing  as  principles  or  laws  of  lexicography,  and  every  critic 
has  a  full  discretion  to  confound  the  application  of  a  term  with  its  essential 
meaninff  when  he  pleases.  As  to  its  being  here  combined  with  other  words 
expressive  of  authority,  let  it  be  noted,  that  words  thus  connected  cannot 
always  be  synonymous,  and  in  the  next  place  that  the  usual  meaning  of  the 
term,  as  applied  to  the  Messiah  or  to  God,  implies  as  much  authority  as 
either  of  the  others,  for  it  means  an  authoritative  witness  of  the  truth,  and 
this  is  substantially  equivalent  to  Prophet  or  Divine  Teacher, — an  office 
with  which  David  never  was  invested  in  relation  to  the  gentiles.  The 
more  restricted  sense  of  monitor  (n"^ri^5D)  which  Kimchi  puts  upon  the  word 
is  no  less  arbitrary  than  the  vague  one  (n-i)  given  in  the  Targum. — T'SJ  is 
properly  the  one  in  front,  the  foremost,  and  is  therefore  naturally  used  to 
signify  a  chief  or  leader.  This  title  is  expressly  applied  to  the  Messiah  by 
Daniel  (9  :  25),  and  the  corresponding  titles  uqik^v  and  (ii>x>]yog  to  Christ  in 
the  New  Testament  (Acts  3  :  15.  Heb.  2:10.  Rev.  1:5),  considered  both 
as  an  example  and  a  leader. — The  third  name  (n.;;^^),  being  properly  the 
participle  of  a  verb  which  means  to  command,  might  ,be  considered  as 
equivalent  either  to  preceptor  or  commander,  both  derivatives  from  verbs  of 
the  same  meaning.  Now  as  one  of  these  definitions  agrees  well  with  the 
explanation  which  has  been  adopted  of  the  first  title  (witness),  and  the  other 
with  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  second  (leader),  and  as  the  offices  of  pre- 
ceptor and  commander  are  by  no  means  incompatible  and  actually  meet  m 
Christ,  there  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  excluding  either  in  the 
case  before  us.  At  the  same  time,  let  it  be  observed  that  as  njs  sometimes 
means  to  command  in  a  military  sense,  but  never  perhaps  to  teach  or  give 


CHAPTER    LV.  303 

instruction,  the  idea  of  coinnaander  must  predominate  in  any  case,  and  is 
entitled  to  the  preference,  if  either  must  be  chosen  to  the  entire  exclusion  of 
the  other. — Of  the  objections  which  the  modern  writers  urge  against  the 
application  of  this  verse  to  the  Messiah,  that  which  they  appear  to  consider 
the  most  cogent  and  conclusive  is  precisely  that  which  we  have  seen,  from 
the  beginning  of  the  book,  to  be  the  weakest  and  most  groundless,  namely, 
that  these  Later  Prophecies  know  nothing  of  a  personal  Messiah  ;  which  is 
established  in  the  usual  manner  by  denying  all  the  cases  seriatim,  and  refus- 
ing to  let  one  of  them  be  cited  in  defence  or  illustration  of  another.  It  is 
proper  to  observe  in  this  connexion,  that  both  Umbreit  and  Hendewerk 
retain  the  usual  sense  of  "i? ,  and  that  the  latter  understands  the  verse  as  a 
description  of  the  office  which  the  Jewish  people  should  discharge  in  refer- 
ence to  the  other  nations  after  their  return  from  exile.  This  is  a  near 
approach  to  the  correct  interpretation,  and  may  be  blended  with  it  by 
recurring  to  the  exegetical  hypothesis,  of  which  we  have  so  often  spoken, 
that  the  Body  and  the  Head  are  often  introduced  as  one  ideal  person. 
This,  though  at  variance  with  Knobel's  notion  that  the  Prophet  has  now 
ceased  to  speak  of  Israel  as  one  individual  servant  of  Jehovah  (see  above, 
on  ch.  54  :  17),  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  general  tenor  of  the  Scrip- 
tures as  to  the  vocation  and  the  mission  both  of  Christ  and  of  the  Church. 

V.  5.  Lo,  a  nation  (that)  thou  knotvest  not  thou  shalt  call,  and  a  nation 
(that)  have  not  known  thee  shall  run  unto  thee,  for  the  sake  of  Jehovah  thy 
God,  and  for  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  for  he  hath  glorified  thee.  The 
question  which  has  chiefly  divided  interpreters,  in  reference  to  this  verse,  is, 
whether  the  object  of  address  is  the  Messiah  or  the  Church.  The  former 
opinion  is  maintained  by  Calvin,  Sanctius,  and  others  ;  the  latter  by  Grotius 
and  Vitringa.  The  masculine  forms  prove  nothing  either  way  ;  because  the 
Church  is  sometimes  presented  in  the  person  of  Israel,  and  sometimes  per- 
sonified as  a  woman.  The  iDOst  natural  supposition  is,  that  after  speaking 
of  the  Messiah,  he  now  turns  to  him  and  addresses  him  directly.  If  this  be 
so,  the  verse  affords  an  argument  against  the  application  of  v.  4  to  David, 
who  could  not  be  the  subject  of  such  a  jiromise  ages  after  his  decease.  At 
the  same  time,  the  facility  with  which  the  words  can  be  applied  to  either 
subject,  may  be  considered  as  confirming  the  hypothesis  that  although  the 
Messiah  is  the  main  subject  of  the  verse,  the  Church  is  not  entirely  excluded. 
— The  construction  of  the  second  "'is  with  two  plural  verbs  shows  it  to  be 
collective.  Lowth's  version,  the  nation,  is  unnecessary  here,  alihoufdi  the 
article  is  frequently  omitted  both  in  poetry  and  elevated  prose. — Their  run- 
ning indicates  the  eagerness  with  which  they  shall  attach  themselves  to  him 
and  engage  in  his  service.     According  to  Jarchi,  thou  shah  call  means  thou 


304  CHAPTER    LV. 

shall  call  into  thy  service.  (See  Job  19  :  16.) — For  he  hath  glorified  thee. 
This  expression  is  repeatedly  used  in  the  New  Testament  with  reference  to 
Christ.  (See  John  17  :  1,5.  Acts  3  :  13.)  Henderson  gives  ''S  what  is 
supposed  by  some  to  be  its  ])rimary  sense,  viz.  that  of  a  relative  pronoun 
(who  hath  glorified  ihec)  ;  which  is  wholly  unnecessary  here,  and  rests  upon 
a  very  dubious  etymological  assumption. — The  form  of  expression  in  a  part 
of  this  verse  seems  to  be  borrowed  from  2  Sam.  22  :  44  ;  but  the  resem- 
blance neither  proves  that  the  Messiah  is  the  subject  of  that  passage  nor 
that  David  is  the  subject  of  this. — The  nation  means  of  course  the  gentiles. 
What  is  said  of  the  Messiah's  not  knowing  them  is  thus  explained  by  Schmi- 
dius.  "  Messias  non  noverat  gentiles  ut  ecclesiae  suae  membra  actu,  et 
gentiles  ipsum  non  noverant,  saltem  fide,  plerique  etiam  de  ipso  quicquam 
non  audiverant." 

V.  6.  SeeJc  ye  Jehovah  ivhile  he  may  he  found ;  call  ye  upon  him  while 
he  is  near.  The  n,  as  usual  when  joined  with  the  infinitive,  is  a  particle  of 
tini,e.  The  literal  translation  would  be,  in  his  being  found,  in  his  being 
near.  By  a  sudden  apostrophe  he  turns  from  the  Messiah  to  those  whom 
he  had  come  to  save,  and  exhorts  them  to  embrace  this  great  salvation,  to 
be  reconciled  with  God.  A  similar  exhortation,  implying  like  the  present 
that  the  day  of  grace  is  limited,  occurs  in  Zeph.  2  :  2.  There  are  two 
limitations  of  the  text  before  us,  which  have  no  foundation  but  the  will  of 
the  interpreters.  The  first  restricts  it  to  the  Jews  in  general,  either  making 
it  a  general  advice  to  them  to  seize  the  opportunity  of  restoration  (Rosen- 
midler),  or  a  special  warning  to  those  hardened  sinners,  who  refused  to  do  so 
(Knobel),  and  particularly  such  as  were  addicted  to  idolatry.  These  expo- 
sitions are  doubly  arbitrary,  first  in  restricting  the  passage  to  that  period  of 
Jewish  history,  and  then  in  assuming  the  imaginary  fact  that  a  portion  of 
the  exiles  were  unwilling  to  return  ;  the  passages  a|)pealed  to  in  support  of 
which  are  wholly  inconclusive.  An  equally  unfounded  but  less  violent 
assumption  is,  that  this  passage  has  respect  to  the  Jews  not  at  that  lime 
merely,  but  in  general,  as  distinguished  from  the  gentiles.  Like  many  other 
similar  hypotheses,  when  this  is  once  assumed,  it  is  easy  to  accommodate 
the  general  expressions  of  the  passage  to  it ;  but  it  would  be  difficult  to  find 
in  the  whole  chapter  any  adequate  reason  for  applying  its  commands  and 
exhortations  either  to  gentiles  or  to  Jews  exclusively.  In  either  case  there 
were  peculiar  reasons  for  obeying  the  injunction,  but  it  seems  to  be  addressed 
to  both  alike.  The  Jew  had  great  cause  to  beware  lest  the  gentile  should 
outstrip  iiim,  and  the  gentile  might  be  reasonably  urged  to  partake  of  those 
advantages  which  hitherto  had  been  restricted  to  the  Jev^  ;  but  both  are 
called  to  the  same  duty,  namely,  that  of  seeking  and  calling  upon  God, — 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  V .  305 

expressions  elsewhere  used  both  severally  and  together  to  express  the  whole 
work  of  repentance,  faith,  and  new  obedience. — Lowth  seems  to  find  the 
common  version  of  the  last  word  (/tear)  too  simple,  and  enlarges  it  accord- 
ingly to  near  of  hand. 

V.  7.  Let  the  tvicked  forsake  his  ivay,  and  the  man  of  iniquity  his 
thoughts,  and  let  him  return  unto  Jehovah,  and  he  ivill  have  vxercy  on  him, 
and  to  our  God,  for  he  will  abundantly  pardon  (literally,  niultiply  to  pardon^. 
This  is  a  continuation  of  the  foregoing  call,  and  at  the  same  time  an  expla- 
nation of  the  way  in  which  it  was  to  be  obeyed.  We  are  here  taught  that 
the  seeking  of  Jehovah,  and  the  calling  upon  him  just  enjoined,  involve  an 
abandonment  of  sin  and  a  return  to  righteousness  of  life.  The  imperative 
version  of  the  futures  is  warranted,  if  not  required,  by  the  abbreviated  form 
-w^ .  Even  the  future  form,  however,  would  convey  the  same  essential 
meaning  both  in  Hebrew  and  in  English.  The  wicked  shall  forsake  etc.  is 
in  fact  the  strongest  form  of  a  command.  U^ay  is  a  common  figure  for  the 
course  of  life.  What  is  here  meant  is  the  evil  way,  as  Jeremiah  calls  it 
(56  :  1),  i.  e.  a  habitually  sinful  course. — "i'n  is  a  negative  expression,  strictly 
meaning  non-existence  or  non-entity,  and  then,  in  a  secondary  moral  sense, 
the  destitution  of  all  goodness,  which  is  put,  by  a  common  Hebrew  idiom, 
for  the  existence  of  the  very  opposite.  The  common  version  (r/ie  unright- 
eous man^  gives  the  sense  but  not  the  whole  force  of  the  original  construc- 
tion, which  is  here  retained  by  Hendewerk  (c/er  Mann  der  Misscthat).  The 
same  writer  speaks  of  these  two  verses  as  an  interruption,  by  the  Prophet, 
of  the  divine  discourse.  This  criticism  is  founded  on  the  mention  of  Jehovah 
in  the  third  person,  which  is  a  form  of  speech  constantly  occmring,  even 
where  he  is  himself  the  speaker,  not  to  mention  the  futiliiy  of  the  assump- 
tion that  the  passage  is  dramatic  or  a  formal  dialogue.  It  mattered  little  to 
the  writer's  purpose  whether  he  seemed  to  be  himself  the  speaker  or  a  mere 
reporter  of  the  words  of  God,  to  whom  in  either  case  they  must  be  finally 
ascribed.  Hence  the  constant  alternation  of  the  first,  second,  and  third 
persons,  in  a  style  which  sets  all  rules  of  unity  and  rigid  laws  of  composi- 
tion at  defiance. — The  word  translated  thoughts  is  commonly  employed  not 
to  denote  opinions  but  designs  or  purposes,  in  which  sense  it  is  joined  with 
way,  in  order  to  express  the  whole  drift  of  the  character  and  life.  To 
return  to  God  in  both  these  respects  is  a  complete  description  of  repentance, 
implying  an  entire  change  of  heart  as  well  as  life. — The  indirect  construc- 
tion of  ^!^^'^.'^"'!i ,  which  is  given  in  most  modern  versions  (that  he  may  have 
mercy  on  him),  is  not  only  a  gratuitous  intrusion  of  the  occidental  idiom,  but 
injurious  to  the  sense  by  making  that  contingent  which  is  positively  pro- 
mised. The  encouragement  to  seek  God  is  not  merelj^  that  he  may,  but 
that  he  will  have  mercy.      Lowth's  decoction  of  the  same  words  (will 

20 


306  CHAPTER    L  V  . 

receive  him  ivilh  compassioii)  is  enfeebling  in  another  way,  and  inexact; 
because  the  act  of  receiving  is  implied,  not  expressed,  and  the  verb  denotes 
not  mere  compassion  but  gratuitous  and  sovereign  tnercy. — There  is  further 
encouragement  contained  in  the  expression  our  God.  To  the  Jew  it  would 
suggest  motives  drawn  from  the  covenant  relation  of  Jehovah  to  his  peoj)Ie, 
while  the  gentile  would  regard  it  as  an  indirect  assurance  that  even  he  was 
not  excluded  from  God's  mercy. — Another  weakening  of  this  sentence  is 
effected  by  the  modern  version  of  the  last  clause  as  a  mere  description 
(Lowth  :  for  he  aboundeth  in  forgiveness),  and  not  as  an  explicit  promise 
that  he  will  abundantly  forgive,  which  is  not  only  the  natural  and  obvious 
import  of  the  terms,  but  imperatively  required  by  the  favourite  law  of 
parallelism. 

V.  8.  For  my  thoughis  (^nrc)  not  your  thoughts,  nor  your  ivays  my 
ways,  saith  Jehovah.     Clear  and  simple  as  these  words  are  in  themselves, 
they  have  occasioned  much  dispute  among  interpreters,  in  reference  to  their 
nexus  with  what  goes  before.     The  earliest  commentators,  Jews  and  Chris- 
tians, seem  to  have  understood  them  as  intended  to  meet  an  objection  to  the 
promise  arising  from  its   vastness  and  its  freeness,  by  assuring  us  that  such 
forgiveness,  however  foreign   from   the  feelings  and  the  practices  of  men,  is 
not  beyond  the  reach  of  the  divine  compassion.      As  if  he  had  said,  'to  you 
such   forgiveness   may  appear   impossible;  but   my   thoughts  are   not  your 
thoughts,  neither  your  ways  my  ways.'     This  is  the  sense  put  upon  the 
words  by  Cyril,  Aben  Ezra,  Kimchi,  Oecolampadius,  Piscator,  Henderson. 
Thus  understood,  the  text  may  be  compared  with  Matt.  19:  26.     Another 
explanation,  that  of  Vitringa,  rests  upon  the  false  assumption  that  the  words 
have  reference  to  the  Jews,  and  were   intended  to  correct   their  prejudice 
against  the  calling  of  the  gentiles  as  at  variance  with  the  promises  of  God 
to  themselves.     As  If  he  had  said,  '  you  may  think  the  extension  of  my  grace 
to  them  a  departure  from  my  settled  ways  and   purposes;   but   my  thoughts 
are  not  your  thoughts,  nor  your  ways  my  ways.'     This  specific  application 
of  the  words  could  scarcely  be  suggested  to  any  ordinary  reader,  either  by 
the  text  or  context,  and  at  most  can  only  be  considered  as  included  in  its 
general  import.     Jerome  and  Rosenmiiller,  while  they  seem  to  acquiesce  in 
the  principle  of  the  interpretation  first  proposed,  so  far  modify  it  as  to  make 
the  faithfulness  and  truth  of  the  divine  assurances  a  prominent  idea.     This 
sense  is  also  put  upon  the  words  by  Gesenius  and  several  of  the  later  writers, 
who  suppose  the  meaning  of  this  verse  to  be  determined  by  the  analogy  of 
vs.  10,  11,  and  accordingly  explain  it  as  denoting  the  irrevocable  nature  of 
God's  purposes  and  promises.     In  this  sense,  it  may  be  considered  parallel 
to  Num.  23 :  19  and  1  Sam.  15  :  29.  Is.  31 :  2.  45  :  23.     But  this  is  neither 
the  natural  meaning  of  the  words,  nor  one  which  stands  in  any  obvious  rela- 


CH  AP  T  E  R    L  V.  307 

tion  to  what  goes  before;  in  consequence  of  which  some  who  hold  it  are 
under  the  necessity  of  denying  that  the  ''S  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  has 
its  proper  causal  meaning.  It  is  indeed  hard  to  see  any  coherence  in  this 
sequence  of  ideas, '  let  the  wicked  man  repent,  for  my  promise  is  irrevocable.' 
This  objection  does  not  lie  against  another  very  ancient  explanation  of  the 
passage,  that  proposed  by  Jarchi,  but  maintained  by  scarcely  any  later  writer 
except  Sanctius.  This  hypothesis  is  founded  on  the  obvious  correspondence 
of  the  terms  employed  in  this  verse  and  in  that  before  it,  and  especially  the 
parallel  expressions  ways  and  thoughts,  there  applied  to  man  and  here  to 
God.  According  to  this  last  interpretation,  we  have  here  a  reason  given 
why  the  sinner  must  forsake  his  ways  and  thoughts,  viz.  because  they  are 
incurably  at  variance  with  those  of  God  himself:  'Let  the  wicked  forsake 
his  way,  and  the  unrighteous  man  his  thoughts  ;  for  my  thoughts  are  not  your 
thoughts,  neither  your  ways  my  ways.'  Vitringa's  objection  to  this  exposi- 
tion, that  the  fact  asserted  is  too  obvious  and  familiar  to  be  emphatically 
stated,  is  an  arbitrary  allegation,  as  to  which  the  tastes  of  different  men  may 
naturally  differ.  There  is  more  weight  in  the  objection  that  the  moral  dis- 
similitude between  God  and  man  would  hardly  be  expressed  by  a  reference 
to  the  height  of  the  heavens  above  the  earth.  But  the  difference  in  question 
is  in  fact  a  difference  of  elevation,  on  the  most  important  scale,  that  of 
morals,  and  might  therefore  be  naturally  so  expressed.  At  all  events,  this 
interpretation  has  so  greatly  the  advantage  of  the  others,  in  facility  and 
beauty  of  connexion  with  what  goes  before,  that  it  nmst  be  considered  as 
at  least  affording  the  formal  basis  of  the  true  interpretation,  but  without 
excluding  wholly  the  ideas  which  according  to  the  other  theories  these 
words  express.  They  may  all  be  reconciled  indeed  by  making  the  disparity 
asserted  have  respect  not  merely  to  moral  purity,  but  also  to  constancy, 
benevolence,  and  wisdom.  As  if  he  had  said,  'you  must  forsake  your  evil 
ways  and  thoughts,  and  by  so  doing,  you  infallibly  secure  my  favour ;  for 
as  high  as  the  heavens  are  above  the  earth,  so  far  am  I  superior  to  you  in 
mercy,  not  only  in  the  rigour  and  extent  of  my  requirements,  but  also  in 
compassion  for  the  guilty,  in  benevolent  consideration  even  for  the  gentiles, 
and  in  the  constancy  and  firmness  of  my  purposes  when  formed.' — In  his 
comment  upon  this  verse,  Viiringa  gives  his  definition  of  the  ways  of  God, 
which  has  so  frequently  been  cited  or  repeated  without  citation  :  "  Viae 
Dei  sunt  vel  quibus  ipse  incedit,  vel  quibus  homines  incedere  vult."  For 
the  meaning  of  his  thoughts,  see  Ps.  33  :  11  and  Jer.  51  :  29.  If  the  sensii 
which  has  been  put  upon  the  sentence  be  correct,  it  means  far  more  than 
that  which  Hitzig  quotes  from  Homer,  dll^  aisi  7E  Jiog  y.Qei'aacov  voog  Jitntii 
uvSqmi'.  Knobel  can  of  course  sec  nothing  here  but  an  allusion  to  Cyrus 
and  Croesus. 


30S  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  V . 

V.  9.  For  (rts)  the  heavens  are  higher  than  the  earth,  so  are  my  ways 
higher  than  your  ways,  and  my  thoughts  than  your  thoughts.  Tl)is  is  an 
illustration  by  comparison  of  llie  negative  assertion  in  the  verse  precedino;. 
The  as  in  the  protasis  of  the  comparison  is  left  out,  as  in  Hos.  11:2.  Ps. 
48  :  6.  Job  7  :  9.  Jer.  3  :  20.  There  can  be  no  ground  therefore  for  sup- 
posing, with  Seeker,  Houbigant,  and  Lowth,  that  it  has  dropped  out  of  the 
text  in  this  place.  The  full  expression  may  be  seen  in  ch.  10:  11. — The 
"TO  might  here  be  taken  in  its  proper  sense  o{  from,  away  from,  as  the  refer- 
ence is  in  fact  to  an  interval  of  space  ;  but  our  idiom  would  hardly  bear 
the  strict  translation,  and  comparison  is  certainly  implied,  if  not  expressed. 
The  same  comparison  and  in  a  similar  application  occurs  Ps.  103  :  11. 

V.  10,  1 1.  For  as  the  rain  cometh  down,  and  the  snow  from  heaven,  and 
thither  returneth  not,  but  when  it  has  loatered  the  earth  and  made  it  bear  and  put 
forth  and  has  given  seed  to  the  soivcr  and  bread  to  the  eater,  so  shall  my  ivord 
be,  which  goeth  out  of  my  mouth  ;  it  shall  not  return  unto  me  void  (or  ivithout 
effect^,  but  when  it  has  done  that  which  I  desired,  and  successfully  done  that 
for  which  1  sent  it.  This  is  a  new  comparison,  suggested  by  the  mention  of 
the  heavens  and  the  earth  in  the  preceding  verse.  The  tenth  and  eleventh 
form  a  single  sentence  of  unusual  length  in  Hebrew  composition.  The  one 
contains  the  coujparison  properly  so-called,  the  other  makes  the  application. 
The  futures  "'7:'!  and  3vr"j  strictly  mean  \\ill  come  down,  will  return,  imj)ly- 
in<T  that  the  same  series  of  events  might  be  expected  to  recur;  but  as  a  still 
more  general  recurrence  is  implied,  the  true  sense  is  conveyed  by  the  Eng- 
lish present. — The  construction  of  ex  "3  is  precisely  the  same  as  in  Gen. 
32  :  27.  Lev.  22  :  6.  Ruth  2  :  16.  3  :  18.  Amos  3  :  7,  in  all  which  cases 
it  indicates  the  sine  qua  non,  the  condition  without  which  the  event 
expressed  by  the  future  cannot  take  place.  Hitzig  asserts  however  that  the 
Hebrews  knew  nothing  of  the  rain  going  back  to  heaven  by  evaporation, 
and  on  this  ground  will  not  let  the  words  have  their  obvious  and  necessary 
meaning.  The  impossibility  of  proving  any  thing  from  such  expressions, 
either  as  to  the  ignorance  or  knowledge  of  the  laws  of  nature  which  the 
ancients  possessed,  has  been  repeatedly  pointed  out.  But  it  is  certainly 
too  much  to  violate  analogy  and  syntax  for  the  purpose  of  involving  the 
writer  in  a  real  or  apparent  blunder. — The  word  of  v.  11  is  not  merely 
prophecy  or  promise,  much  less  the  command  of  God  to  Cyrus  respecting 
Israel  (Henderson),  least  of  all  the  Prophet  himself  as  an  incarnation  of 
Jehovah's  word  (Hendewerk),  but  every  thing  that  God  utters  either  in  the 
way  of  prediction  or  command. — The  construction  of  T^nnViU  ^L'X  is  essen- 
tially the  same  as  in  2  Sam.  1 1  :  22.  That  n^tj  governs  two  accusatives  is 
evident  from  such  places  as  1  Kings  14:6. — The  English  Version  refers 


CHAPTER    LV.  309 

'r;  to  the  earth  ;  but  this  construction  is  precluded  by  the  difference  of 
gender.  The  effect  is  metaphorically  represented  as  produced  directly  by 
the  rain  and  snow. — fl'^^H  does  not  mean  prosper  in,  but  make  to  prosper 
or  do  prosperously,  ilie  active  sense  being  inseparable  from  the  Hiphll  form. 
The  general  design  of  these  two  verses  is  to  generate  and  foster  confidence 
in  what  Jehovah  has  en^affed  lo  do. 


o    o 


V.  12.  For  with  joy  shall  ye  go  forth,  and  in  peace  shall  ye  he  led ;  (he 
mountains  and  the  hills  shall  break  out  before  you  into  a  shout,  and  all  the 
trees  of  the  field  shall  clap  the  hand.  Here  as  in  many  other  places  the 
idea  of  joyful  change  is  expressed  by  representing  all  nature  as  rejoicing. 
(See  ch.  35  :  1,  2.  44  :  23.  49  :  13.  52  :  9.  Ps.  98  :  8.)  The  expression 
go  forth  is  eagerly  seized  upon  by  some  interpreters  as  justifying  the  restric- 
tion of  the  passage  to  the  restoration  from  the  Babylonish  exile.  But  the 
real  allusion  in  such  cases  is  to  the  deliverance  from  Egypt,  which  is  con- 
stantly referred  to  as  a  type  of  deliverance  in  general,  so  that  every  sio^nal 
restoration  or  deliverance  is  represented  as  a  spiritual  exodus.  Vitringa, 
with  much  more  probability,  applies  the  words  to  the  joy  of  the  first  heathen 
converts  when  they  heard  the  gospel  (Acts  13  :  48.  1  Thess.  1  :  6).  The 
rabbins  upon  their  part  understand  the  passage  as  a  prophecy  of  Israel's 
deliverance  from  the  present  exile  and  dispersion.  All  the  interpreters 
since  Lowth  repeat  his  fine  quotation  from  Virgil,  ipsi  laetitia  monies  etc. 

V^.  13.  Instead  of  the  thorn  shall  come  vp  the  cypress,  and  instead  of 
the  nettle  the  myrtle,  and  it  shall  he  to  Jehovah  for  a  name,  for  an  ever- 
lasting sign  that  shall  not  be  cut  off.  The  same  change  which  had  just 
been  represented  by  the  shouting  of  the  hills  and  the  applause  of  the 
forests  is  now  described  as  the  substitution  of  the  noblest  trees  for  the 
most  unprofitable  and  offensive  plants.  (Compare  ch.  41  :  19.)  An 
analogous  but  different  figure  for  the  same  thing  is  the  opening  of  rivers 
in  the  desert.  (See  above,  ch.  35:  6,  7.  43:  19,  20.)  For  the  mean- 
ing of  '{''■^"}.  and  T::ii2,  see  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  pp.  129,  272.  The 
name  "'S'^o  occurs  only  here.  Simonis  and  Ewald  understand  it  as  denot- 
ing a  species  of  mustard  plant.  Jerome  describes  it  as  a  worthless  and 
offensive  weed.  The  Seventy  have  y.ovv'Su.  The  modern  writers  are 
disposed  to  acquiesce  in  the  Vulgate  Version,  nrtica  or  nettle.  All  that 
is  essential  to  the  writer's  purpose  is,  that  it  be  understood  to  signify  a  mean 
and  useless  plant,  and  thus  to  form  a  contrast  with  the  myrtle  as  the  thorn 
does  with  the  cypress. — Instead  o^  it  shall  be,  the  modern  Germans  as  usual 
prefer  the  indirect  construction,  that  it  may  he,  which  is  neither  so  exact  nor 
so  expressive  as  the  strict  translation.  Knobel  makes  the  trees  the  subject 
of  this  last  clause  also  ;  but  it  seems  more  natural  to  understand  it  as  refer- 


310  CH  A  P  T  E  R    L  VI. 

ring  to  the  change  itself,  described  in  this  and  the  preceding  verse.  Drop- 
ping the  metaphor,  the  Prophet  tlien  says,  in  direct  terms,  that  the  glorious 
change  predicted  shall  redound  to  the  glory  of  its  author.  It  shall  be  for  a 
name,  i,  e.  it  shall  serve  as  a  memorial,  which  is  then  described  in  other 
words  as  a  sign  of  perpetuity  or  everlasting  token,  with  allusion,  as  Vitringa 
thinks,  to  those  commemorative  obelisks  or  pillars  mentioned  elsewhere  (e.  g. 
ch.  19  :  19).  This  memorial  is  called  perpetual  because  it  shall  not  he  cut 
off,  pass  away,  or  be  abolished. — It  will  here  be  sufficient  simply  to  state 
the  fact  that  Knobel  understands  this  as  a  promise  that  the  homeward 
journey  of  the  exiles  should  be  comfortable  and  pleasant  (bequem  und 
angenehm) . 


CHAPTER    LVI. 


While  the  church,  with  its  essential  institutions,  is  to  continue  unim- 
paired, the  old  distinctions,  national  and  personal,  are  to  be  done  away,  and 
the  Jewish  people  robbed  of  that  pre-eminence  of  which  its  rulers  proved 
themselves  unworthy. 

The  day  is  coming  when  the  righteousness  of  God  is  to  be  fully  revealed, 
without  the  veils  and  shackles  which  had  hitherto  confined  it,  v.  1.  For 
this  great  change  the  best  preparation  is  fidelity  to  the  spirit  of  the  old 
^conomy,  v.  2.  No  personal  or  national  distinctions  will  be  any  longer 
recognised,  v.  3.  Connexion  with  the  church  will  no  longer  be  a  matter  of 
hereditary  right,  vs.  4,  5.  The  church  shall  be  henceforth  co-extensive 
with  the  world,  vs.  6-8.  But  first,  the  carnal  Isi-ael  must  be  abandoned  to 
its  enemies,  v.  9.  Its  rulers  are  neither  able  nor  worthy  to  deliver  the 
people  or  themselves,  vs.  10-12. 

V.  1.  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  Keep  ye  judgment  (ov  justice)  and  do  right- 
eousness ;  for  near  {is)  my  salvation  to  come,  and  my  righteousness  to  be 
revealed.  The  .Jews  refer  this  passage  to  their  present  dispersion,  and 
understand  it  as  declaring  the  conditions  of  their  restoration.  Vitringa 
applies  it  to  the  beginning  of  the  new  dispensation  ;  Piscator  to  the  new 
dispensation  generally  ;  the  modern  Germans  to  the  end  of  the  Babylonish 
exile.  These  different  classes  of  interpreters  of  course  expound  particulars 
in  accordance  with  their  general  hypothesis,  but  none  of  them  without 
undue  restriction  of  that   w  hich  in  itself  requires  or  at  least  admits  a  wider 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  V  I.  31[ 

application.  On  the  principle  heretofore  assumed  as  the  basis  of  our  expo- 
sition, we  can  only  regard  it  as  a  statement  of  the  general  laws  which  govern 
the  divine  dispensations  towards  the  chosen  people  and  the  world  at  large. 
The  reference  is  not  merely  to  the  ancient  Israel,  much  less  to  the  Jews  of 
the  captivity,  still  less  to  the  Christian  church  distinctively  considered,  least 
of  all  to  the  Christian  church  of  any  one  period.  The  doctrine  of  the 
passage  is  simply  this,  that  they  who  enjoy  extraordinary  privileges,  or 
expect  extraordinary  favours,  are  under  corresponding  obligations  to  do  the 
will  of  God  ;  and  inoreover  that  the  nearer  the  manifestation  of  God's 
mercy,  whether  in  time  or  in  eternity,  the  louder  the  call  to  righteousness 
of  life.  These  truths  are  of  no  restricted  application,  but  may  be  applied 
wherever  the  relation  of  a  cliurch  or  chosen  people  can  be  recognised. 
Without  attempting  to  refute  the  various  opinions  founded  on  the  false 
hypothesis  of  a  local  or  temporal  limitation,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  point  out 
the  absurdities  attending  that  which  in  our  day  has  the  greatest  vogue,  viz. 
the  notion  that  the  passage  relates  merely  to  the  Babylonish  ex,ile.  Thus 
Maurer  understands  the  Prophet  as  advising  his  contemporaries  to  act  in  a 
manner  worthy  of  their  approaching  liberation,  and  Gesenius  supposes  him 
to  take  this  opportunity  of  conibating  the  Jewish  prejudice  against  the  call- 
ing of  the  gentiles.  Why  this  error  needed  to  be  controverted  at  this 
precise  juncture,  he  omits  to  explain.  But  this  is  not  the  worst  thing  in 
Gesenius's  interpretation  of  the  place  before  us.  After  saying  that  a  prose- 
lyting spirit  is  inseparable  from  the  belief  in  one  exclusive  way  of  salvation, 
and  particularly  pardonable  in  the  Jewish  exiles,  surrounded  as  they  were 
by  idolaters,  he  goes  on  to  represent  the  liberal  spirit  of  this  passage  as 
directly  at  variance  with  the  law  of  Moses,  particularly  as  contained  in 
Deut.  23  :  2-8,  which  he  says  is  virtually  here  repealed.  This  shallow  and 
erroneous  view  of  the  relation  which  subsists  between  the  Law  and  the  Pro- 
phets will  correct  itself  as  we  proceed  with  the  detailed  interpretation. 
aadia  seems  here  to  be  equivalent  to  iT^iFi ,  with  which  it  is  connected  as  a 
parallel  in  ch.  42  :  4.  51  :  4. 

V.  2.  Happy  (he  man  (jhat)  shall  do  this,  and  the  son  of  man  that 
shall  hold  it  fast,  keeping  the  Sabbath  from  profaning  it,  and  keeping  his 
hand  from  doing  all  evil.  The  pronoun  this  seems  to  refer  to  what  follows, 
as  in  Ps.  7  :  4  and  Deut.  32  :  29.  Son  of  man  is  simply  an  equivalent 
expression  to  tlie  man  of  the  other  clause.  The  last  clause  is  remarkable, 
and  has  occasioned  much  dispute  among  interpreters,  on  account  of  its 
combining  a  positive  and  negative  description  of  the  character  required, 
the  last  of  which  is  very  general,  and  the  first  no  less  specific.  A  great 
variety  of  reasons  have  been  given  for  the  special  mention  of  the  .Sabbath 
here.     It  has  especially  perplexed  those  writers  \\  ho  regard  the  Sabbath  as 


312  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  V  I . 

a  temporary  ceremonial  institution.  Some  of  these  endeavour  to  evatle  the 
difficulty,  by  supposing  that  the  Sabbath  here  meant  is  a  mystical  or 
spiritual  Sabbatism,  a  repose  from  suffering,  sin,  or  ceremonial  impositions. 
But  how  could  such  a  Sabbath  be  observed,  or  how  could  they  be  called 
upon  to  Jvccp  it,  as  a  condition  of  the  divine  favour?  Some  suppose  the 
Sabbath  to  be  here  put  for  the  whole  Mosaic  system  of  religious  services,  as 
being  the  most  ancient,  and,  in  some  sort,  the  foundation  of  the  rest. 
According  to  Gesenius,  it  is  specified  because  it  was  the  only  part  of  the 
Mosaic  institutions  which  could  be  perpetuated  through  the  exile,  that 
which  was  merely  ceremonial  and  restricted  to  the  temple  being  necessarily 
suspended.  Rosenmiiller  thinks  that  it  is  here  referred  to,  as  a  public 
national  profession  of  the  worship  of  one  God.  The  true  explanation  is 
afforded  by  a  reference  to  the  primary  and  secondary  ends  of  the  Sabbatical 
institution,  and  the  belief  involved  in  its  observance.  In  the  first  place,  it 
implied  a  recognition  of  Jehovah  as  the  omnipotent  creator  of  the  universe 
(Ex.  20  :  1 1 .  31:17);  in  the  next  place,  as  the  sanctifier  of  his  people,  not 
in  the  technical  or  theological  sense,  hut  as  denoting  him  by  whom  they  had 
been  set  apart  as  a  peculiar  people  (Ex.  31  :  13.  Ez.  20  :  12)  ;  in  the  next 
place,  as  the  Saviour  of  this  chosen  people  from  the  bondage  of  Egypt 
(Deut.  5  :  15).  Of  these  great  truths  the  Sabbath  was  a  weekly  remem- 
brancer, and  its  observance  by  the  people  a  perpetual  recognition  and 
profession,  besides  the  practical  advantages  accruing  to  the  maintenance  of 
a  religious  spirit  by  tlie  weekly  recurrence  of  a  day  of  rest — advantages  which 
no  one  more  distinctly  acknowledges,  or  states  more  strongly,  than  Gesenius. 
Holding  fast,  is  a  common  idiomatic  expression  for  consistent  perseverance 
in  a  certain  course.  It  occurs  not  unfrequently  in  the  New  Testament. 
(Heb.  4:4.  6:18.  Rev.  2  :  25.  3:11.)  The  suffix  in  pt3  refers  to  rxT, 
and  like  it  has  respect  to  the  whole  course  of  conduct  afterwards  described. 
Gesenius  refers  to  ch.  1  :  13  as  a  rejection  of  the  Sabbath,  and  in  this 
detects  a  want  of  agreement  between  the  genuine  and  spurious  Isaiah, — a 
conclusion  resting  wholly  on  a  false  view  of  that  passage,  for  the  true  sense 
of  which  see  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  pp.  9-12. 

V.  3.  And,  let  not  the  foreigner  say,  who  has  joined  himself  unto 
Jehovah,  saijing,  Jehovah  will  separate  me  wholUj  from  his  people ;  and  let 
not  the  eunuch  say,  Lo,  T  am  a  dry  tree.  The  essential  meaning  of  this 
verse  is,  tliat  all  external  disabilities  shall  be  abolished,  whether  personal  or 
national.  To  express  the  latter  he  makes  use  of  the  phrase  "^sn-ja,  which 
strictly  means  not  the  son  of  the  stronger,  as  the  common  version  has  it, 
but  the  son  of  strangeness,  or  of  a  strange  country  ;  ~=!  corresponding  to 
the  German  Frcmde,  which  has  no  equivalent  in  English.  The  whole 
class  of  personal  disqualifications  is  represented  by  the  case  of  the  eunuch. 


CHAPTER    LVI.  313 

in  reference  to  Deut.  23  :  I,  and  as  Calvin  thinks  to  the  promise  in  Gen. 
15  :  5.  and  22  :  17,  from  which  that  class  of  persons  was  excluded. 
Hensler's  idea  that  0"'"iO  here  means  an  officer  or  courtier,  is  precluded  by 
the  addition  of  the  words,  I  am  a  dry  tree,  a  proverbial  description  of  child- 
lessness said  to  be  still  current  in  the  east.  It  is  possible,  iiowever,  that  the 
eunuch  may  be  mentioned,  simply  because  it  stands  at  the  beginning  of  the 
list  of  prohibitions  in  the  law.  In  either  case,  the  expression  is  generic  or 
representative  of  more  particulars  than  it  expresses.  Knobel's  restriction  of 
the  first  clause  to  the  Canaanites,  who  mingled  with  the  Jews  in  their 
captivity,  or  occupied  their  places  in  their  absence,  is  entirely  gratuitous. 
The  meaning  is,  that  all  restrictions,,  even  such  as  still  affected  proselytes, 
should  be  abolished. 

V.  4,  5.  For  (has  saith  Jehovah  to  (or,  as  to)  the  eunuchs  who  shall  keep 
my  Sabbaths,  and  shall  choose  what  T  delight  in,  and  take  fast  hold  of  my 
covenant,  I  ivill  give  to  them  in  my  house  and  within  my  ivalls  a  place  and 
name  better  than  sons  and  than  daughters ;  an  everlasting  name  toill  I  give 
to  him,  which  shall  not  be  cut  off.  According  to  Joseph  Kimchi,  the  plural 
Sabbaths  is  intended  to  include  the  Sabbatical  year  and  that  of  jubilee.  If 
any  distinction  was  intended,  it  was  probably  that  between  the  wider  and 
narrower  meaning  of  the  term  Sabbaths,  i.  e.  the  Sabbath  properly  so  called, 
and  the  other  institutions  of  religion  with  which  it  is  connected. — What  it 
is  that  God  delights  in,  may  be  learned  from  ch.  GQ  :  4.  Jer.  9  :  24.  Hos. 
6  :  6.  By  holding  Aist  my  covenant  is  meant  adhering  to  his  compact  with 
me,  which  includes  obedience  to  the  precepts  and  faith  in  the  promises. 
The  1  at  the  beginning  of  v.  5  introduces  the  apodosis,  and  gives  the  verb 
a  future  meaning. — By  7ny  walls  we  are  not  to  understand,  with  Jerome, 
those  of  Jerusalem,  nor,  with  the  modern  writers,  those  of  the  temple,  but  in 
a  more  ideal  sense,  the  walls  of  God's  house  or  dwelling,  which  had  just  been 
mentioned.  The  promise  is  not  merely  one  of  free  access  to  the  material 
sanctuary,  but  of  a  home  in  the  household  or  family  of  God,  an  image  of 
perpetual  occurrence  in  the  Psalms  of  David.  (See  especially  Psalms 
15,  23  and  24,  as  expounded  by  Hengstenbei-g.) — The  use  of  the  word  "^ 
in  this  (connexion  is  obscure,  although  the  essential  meaning  is  determined 
by  the  context.  Umbreit  follows  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotion,  in 
adhering  to  the  usual  sense  hand,  which  he  seems  to  think  is  mentioned  as 
the  natural  instrument  of  seizure,  and  metaphorically  applicable  to  the  thing 
seized,  for  example,  to  a  share  or  portion.  Gesenius  recognises  this  use  of 
the  plural  in  a  few  places,  but  appears  to  derive  it  from  the  primary  idea  of 
a  handful.  In  the  case  before  us  he  explains  th(>  word  as  meaning  a  memo- 
rial or  monument,  which  sense  it  seems  to  have  in  2  Sam.  18  :  18,  perhaps 
with  reference,  as  Gesenius  supposes,  to  the  uplifted  hand  and  arm  found  on 


314  CHAPTERLVI. 

many  ancient  cij)pi  or  sepulchral  columns.  But  as  the  antiquity  and  uni- 
versality of  this  practice  are  uncertain,  and  as  the  meaning  j^/ace  is  admissi- 
ble in  2  Sam.  18  :  18,  as  in  many  other  cases,  it  appears  to  be  entitled  to 
the  preference. — Better  than  sons  and  dau<rhters  may  either  mean  better 
than  the  comfort  inmicdiately  derived  from  children  (as  in  Ruth  4  :  15),  or 
better  than  the  perpetuation  of  the  name  by  hereditary  succession.  Most 
interpreters  prefer  the  latter  sense,  but  both  may  be  included.  A  beautiful 
coincidence  and  partial  fulfilment  of  the  promise  is  pointed  out  by  J.  D. 
Michaelis,  in  the  case  of  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  whose  conversion  is  recorded 
in  the  eighth  of  Acts,  and  whose  memory  is  far  more  honoured  in  the  church 
than  it  could  have  been  by  a  long  line  of  illustrious  descendants. 

V.  6,  7.  And  (as  to)  the  foreigners  joining  themselves  to  Jehovah  to 
serve  him  and  to  love  the  name  of  Jehovah,  to  be  to  him  for  servants,  every 
one  keeping  the  Sabbath  from  profaning  it,  and  holding  fast  my  covenant, 
I  will  bring  them  to  my  mount  of  holiness,  and  make  them  joyful  in  my 
house  of  prayer,  their  offerings  and  their  sacrifices  {shall  be)  to  acceptance 
on  my  altar ;  for  my  house  shall  be  called  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  nations. 
Aben  Ezra  points  out  as  a  rhetorical  peculiarity  in  the  structure  of  this  pas- 
sage, that  the  writer,  after  mentioning  the  foreigners  and  eunuchs  in  v.  3, 
afterwards  recurs  to  them  in  an  inverted  order.  As  an  analogous  example, 
he  refers  to  Josh.  24  :  31. — The  verb  rtitiJ ,  although  strictly  a  generic  term, 
is  specially  appropriated  to  the  official  service  of  the  priests  and  Levites. 
Some  interpreters  accordingly  suppose  it  to  be  here  said  that  the  heathen 
shall  partake  of  the  sacerdotal  honours  elsewhere  promised  to  the  church. 
(See  ch.  61  :  6.  Ex.  19  :  6.  1  Pet.  2  :  5,  9.  Rev.  1  :  6.)— To  love  the 
name  of  Jehovaii,  is  to  love  his  attributes  as  manifested  in  his  word  and 
works.  (Con)pare  ch.  60  :  9.  66  :  5.) — "^^^-.^  ^'''?  does  not  mean  the 
house  of  my  prayer,  i.  e.  the  house  where  prayer  is  made  to  me,  but  my 
house  of  prayer,  as  "'^lilF?  "i^  means  my  hill  of  holiness,  or  holy  hill.  Knobel 
supposes  an  allusion  to  the  residence  of  the  Nethinim  on  Ophel.  (Neb. 
3  :  26.  11  :  21.) — Shall  be  called,  as  in  many  other  cases,  implies  that  it 
shall  be  so.  Our  Saviour  quotes  a  ])art  of  the  last  clause,  not  in  reference 
to  its  main  sense,  but  to  what  is  incidentally  mentioned,  viz.  its  being  called 
a  house  of  prayer.  This  part  of  the  sentence  was  applicable  to  the  material 
temple  while  it  lasted  ;  but  the  whole  prediction  could  be  verified  only  after 
its  destruction,  when  the  house  of  God  even  upon  earth  ceased  to  be  a 
limited  locality,  and  became  co-extensive  with  the  church  in  its  enlargement 
and  diflusion.  The  form  of  expression  is  derived,  however,  from  the  cere- 
monies of  tht!  old  economy,  and  worship  is  described  by  names  familiar  to 
the  writer  and  his  original  readers.  (Compare  Hos.  14:3.  Heb.  13  :  13. 
John  4  :  21-23.)     The  general  promise  is  the  same  as  that  in  Mai.  1:11, 


C  H  AP  TE  R    L  VI.  315 

and  is  so  far  from  being  inconsistent  with  the  principles  on  which  tlie  old 
economy  was  founded,  that  it  simply  carries  out  its  original  design  as  settled 
and  announced  from  the  beginning. 

V.  S.  Thus  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah,  the  gatherer  of  the  outcasts  of 
Israel,  Still  Qnore)  will  I  gather  upon  him  (in  addition)  to  his  gathered. 
This  may  either  mean,  1  will  go  on  to  gather  still  more  of  his  outcasts,  or, 
besides  his  outcasts  I  will  gather  others.  There  is  less  difierence  between 
the  two  interpretations  than  at  first  sight  there  might  seem  to  be.  In  either 
case,  the  words  are  applicable  to  the  calling  of  the  gentiles.  On  the  second 
supposition,  which  is  commonly  adopted,  even  by  the  Jewish  writers,  this  is 
the  direct  and  proper  meaning  of  the  words.  But  even  on  the  other,  they 
amount  to  the  same  thing,  if  we  only  give  to  Israel  its  true  sense,  as  denoting 
not  the  Jewish  nation  as  such,  but  the  chosen  people  or  the  church  of  God, 
to  which  the  elect  heathen  as  really  belong  as  the  elect  Jews,  and  are  there- 
fore just  as  much  entitled  to  be  called  outcasts  of  Israel.  It  is  true  that 
our  Saviour  uses  a  similar  expression  (lost  sheep  of  the  House  of  Israel)  in 
a  restricted  application  to  the  Israelites  properly  so  called  ;  but  it  is  in  a 
connexion  which  brinu;s  the  Jews  and  gentiles  into  evident  antithesis,  and 
therefore  leaves  no  doubt  as  to  the  sense  in  which  the  name  Israel  is  to 
be  understood. — t^Vs  may  either  mean  simply  to  him  or  upon  him,  implying 
vast  accumulation. 

V.  9.  All  yc  beasts  of  the  field,  come  to  devour,  all  ye  beasts  in  the 
forest !  The  structure  of  iliis  verse  is  somewhat  unusual,  consisting  of  two 
parallel  members,  with  a  third,  equally  related  to  both,  interposed  between 
them.  It  is  an  invitation  lo  the  enemies  of  Israel  to  destroy  it.  The  peo- 
ple being  represented,  in  the  following  verses,  as  a  flock,  their  destroyers 
arc  naturally  represented  here  as  wild  beasts.  Hitzig  and  Knobel  under- 
stand the  invitation  as  ironical,  or  as  a  mere  poetical  description  of  the 
defenceless  state  in  which  Israel  was  left  through  the  neglect  of  its  natural 
protectors.  It  is  more  natural,  however,  to  explain  it  as  an  indirect  predic- 
tion of  an  actual  event,  clothed  in  Isaiah's  favourite  form  of  an  a[)Ostrophe. 
Vitringa's  limitation  of  the  prophecy  to  the  subversion  of  the  Roman  empire 
by  the  barbarians,  is  as  arbitrary  as  its  application,  in  the  Targum  and  by 
Kimchi,  to  Gog  and  Magog.  We  have  here  simply  one  of  those  alterna- 
tions and  transitions  which  arc  not  only  frequent  in  this  book,  but  one  of  its 
characteristics,  and  indeed  essential  to  the  writer's  purpose  of  exhibiting 
God's  dealing  with  his  church  both  in  wrath  and  inercy.  From  the  fore- 
going promises  of  growth,  he  now  reverts  to  intervening  judgments  and  their 
causes.  There  is  no  ground,  therefore,  for  Luzzatto's  assertion,  that  the 
next  seventeen  verses  are  entirely  unconnected  with  what  goes  before,  and 


316  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  VI. 

must  therefore  be  considered  an  Interpolation.  Ewald,  on  the  other  liand, 
alleges  that  from  this  verse  to  the  middle  of  ch.  57  :  1 1  is  an  extract  from 
an  older  writer,  inserted  here  in  order  to  have  something  against  idolatry, 
and  because  the  author  of  the  book  could  not  hope  to  produce  any  thing 
better  !  As  a  further  illustration  of  the  value  of  such  critical  decisions,  I 
may  add  that  Hendewerk  separates  chs.  55,  56,  and  57  from  the  foregoing 
and  following  context  as  a  distinct  prophecy  !  Besides  the  usual  and 
natural  interpretation  of  the  verse  before  us  as  a  threatening,  may  be  men- 
tioned that  of  Cyril  and  Jerome,  who  regard  it  as  an  invitation  to  all  sorts 
of  men  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  supper  ;  while  Ciericus  explains  it  as  a  like 
invitation  to  the  gentiles  to  frequent  the  temple  and  partake  of  the  sacrificial 
feasts.  The  same  sense  was  put  upon  the  words  by  Rosenmiiller  in  his 
first  edition  ;  but  he  afterwards  adopted  a  different  grammatical  construction 
of  the  sentence,  being  the  one  proposed  by  Aben  Ezra,  who  explains  the 
beasts  of  the  forest  as  the  object  of  the  verb  devour,  and  understands  the 
sentence  as  an  invitation  to  the  heathen  to  destroy  the  wicked  Jews.  The 
same  construction  is  adopted  b}?^  Jarchi  and  Abarbenel,  but  with  a  very 
different  result,  as  they  suppose  tlie  invitation  to  be  given  to  the  proselytes 
to  destroy  the  enemies  of  Israel.  On  the  same  grammatical  foundation 
Cocceius  erects  his  explanation  of  the  verse  as  a  call  to  the  barbarians  to 
destroy  the  corrupt  Christians,  while  Schmidius  regards  it  as  an  exhortation 
to  the  church  to  swallow  up  the  gentiles  by  receiving  them  into  her  bosom  ! 
All  the  modern  writers  seem  to  be  agreed  that  the  last  clause  as  well  as  the 
first  is  a  description  of  the  object  of  address,  and  that  the  thing  to  be 
devoured  must  be  supplied  from  the  following  verses.  With  the  metaphors 
of  this  verse  compare  Ex.  23  :  29.  Ez.  34  :  5-8.  Jer.  12  :  9.  7  :  3:3.  50  :  17. 
Beasts  of  the  field  and  of  the  forest  are  parallel  expressions.  Some  inter- 
preters make  one  a  stiongcr  expression  than  the  other  ;  but  in  deciding  which 
it  is,  they  directly  contradict  each  other.  Vitringa's  notion  that  the  one 
may  mean  the  Saracens,  the  other  the  Huns,  Turks,  and  Tartars,  is,  to  use 
his  own  words  with  respect  to  Cyril's  exposition  of  the  verse,  "  non  com- 
mendabilis  hac  aetate  ecclesiae." 

V.  10.  His  watchmen  (are)  blind  all  of  them,  they  have  not  knoum  (or 
do  not  knoiv),  all  of  them  (^are)  dumb  dogs,  they  cannot  bark,  dreaming, 
lying  doxni,  loving  to  slumber.  The  pronoun  his  refers  to  Israel,  as  in  v.  8, 
and  thus  proves  clearly  that  no  new  discourse  begins  either  with  v.  9  or 
with  that  before  us,  where  the  large  IT  of  the  masoretic  text,  and  the  space 
before  the  verse  in  most  manuscripts,  seem  to  indicate  a  change  of  subject. 
But,  as  Gesenius  correctly  says,  the  writer  merely  pauses  to  take  breath, 
and  then  resumes  the  thread  of  his  discourse.  Many  give  do  not  know  the 
absolute  sense  of  knowing  nothing,  being  without  knowledge  ;  but   in   all 


CH  A  P  TE  R    L  \  I.  317 

such  cases  it  seems  better  to  connect  it  with  an  object  understood.  We 
may  here  supply  their  duty,  or  the  state  of  the  flock,  or  the  danger  to  wliich 
it  is  exposed.  The  difference  between  the  past  and  present  form  is  imma- 
terial here;  because  both  are  really  included,  the  condition  described  beini^ 
one  of  ancient  date,  but  still  continued.  The  dogs  particularly  meant  are 
shepherds'  dogs  (Job  30  :  1),  whose  task  it  was  to  watch  the  flock,  and  by 
their  barking  give  notice  of  approaching  danger.  But  these  are  dumb  do^s 
which  cannot  even  bark,  and  therefore  wholly  useless.  They  are  also 
negligent  and  lazy.  Far  from  averting  peril  or  announcing  it,  they  do  not 
see  it.  What  is  before  expressed  by  the  figure  of  a  blind  watchman,  is  here 
expressed  by  that  of  a  shepherd's  dog  asleep.  t:--h  is  confounded  by  the 
Vulgate,  Symmachus,  and  Saadias,  with  c-t n ,  which  might  either  be  a 
participle  (seeing)  or  a  noun  (^sccrs),  corresponding  to  ivatchmtn  in  the  first 
clause.  The  common  text  is  now  very  generally  regarded  as  correct,  and 
explained  by  the  Arabic  analogy  to  signify  dreaming,  or  talking  in  sleep, 
or  raving  either  from  disease  or  sleep.  Some  suppose  a  particular  allusion 
to  the  murmuring  and  growling  of  a  dog  in  its  dreams.  Some  writers  make 
the  watchmen  of  this  verse  denote  the  prophets,  as  in  ch.  52  :  8.  Jer.  6  :  17. 
Ez.  3  :  17.  3-i  :  7.  But  Gesenius  more  correctly  understands  it  as  a  figure 
for  the  rulers  of  the  people  generally,  not  excluding  even  the  false  prophets. 
The  figurative  title  is  expressive  of  that  watchfuhiess  so  frequently  described 
in  the  New  Testament  as  an  essential  attribute  of  spiritual  guides.  (Com- 
pare also  Matth.  15  :  4.) 

V.  11.  And  the  dogs  are  greedy,  they  Jcnoiv  not  satiety,  and  they,  the 
shepherds  (or  the  shepherds  themselves),  know  not  hoiv  to  distinguish  (or 
act  wisely)  ;  all  of  them  to  their  own  ivay  are  turned,  (^tvery)  man  to  his  own 
gain  from  his  own  quarter  (or  icithout  exception).  A  new  tuin  is  now 
given  to  the  figures  of  the  preceding  verse.  The  dogs,  though  indolent,  are 
greedy.  Several  of  the  ancient  versions  confound  ^'S3  "i-n'  with  era  "'W 
hard-faced,  and  translate  it  impudent.  The  true  sense  of  the  former  phrase 
is  strong  of  appetite,  i.  e.  voracious. — The  pronoun  f^Tzrt  is  emphatic,  and 
may  either  mean  that  these  same  dogs  are  at  the  same  time  shepherds,  thus 
affording  a  transition  to  a  different  though  kindred  image,  or  it  may  be 
intended  to  distinguish  between  two  kinds  of  rulers  ;  as  if  he  had  said,  while 
the  dogs  are  thus  indolent  and  greedy,  they  (the  shepherds)  are  incompe- 
tent ;  or,  while  the  shepherds'  dogs  are  such,  the  shepherds  themselves 
know  not  how  to  distinguish.  The  latter  is  probably  the  true  construction  ; 
for  although  the  same  class  of  persons  may  be  successively  compared  to 
shepherds'  dogs  and  shepherds,  it  cannot  even  by  a  figure  of  speccli  be 
naturally  said  that  the  dogs  themselves  are  shepherds.  There  is  no  need, 
however,  of  distinguishing  between  the  dogs  and  shepherds  as  denoting  civil 


318  CH  A  PT  E  R    L  VI. 

and  religious  rulers,  since  both  comparisons  are  equally  appropriate  lo  rulers 
in  general,  Etymologically,  1'':;^  may  be  understood  to  signify  the  act  of 
discernment  or  discrimination.  Usage  would  seem  to  require  tbat  of  being 
wise  or  prudent ;  but  its  llipbil  form,  and  its  being  preceded  by  the  verb  to 
know,  are  in  favour  of  explaining  it  to  mean  wise  conduct,  with  particular 
reference  in  this  case  to  official  obligation.  Their  being  all  turned  to  their 
own  way  is  expressive  of  diversity,  and  also  of  selfishness  in  each  individual. 
The  latter  sense  is  then  expressed  more  fully  by  the  addition  of  "i"^^^  ,  to 
or  for  his  own  gain  or  profit.  That  voluptuous  as  well  as  avaricious  indul- 
gences are  here  referred  to,  is  apparent  from  what  follows  in  the  next  verse. 
— The  last  word  literally  means  jTrom  his  end  or  his  extremity,  to  which  the 
older  writers  gave  the  sense  of  his  quarter  or  direction,  corresponding  to  his 
own  way  ;  and  Henderson  says  that  it  expresses  the  extreme  lengths  to 
which  they  went  in  their  efforts  to  accumulate  gain.  Most  of  the  modern 
writers  have  adopted  the  opinion  of  De  Dieu,  that  'in^iSiD  means  ad  unmn 
omncs,  all  without  exception,  i.  e.  all  within  a  given  space  or  number,  from 
its  very  end  or  remotest  limit.  (Compare  Gen.  19:4.  Jer.  51  :3l.  Ez. 
25  :  9.) 

V.  12.  Come  ye,  I  iviJl  fetch  wine,  and  ive  will  intoxicate  ourselves  with 
strong  drink,  and  like  to-day  (^shall  be)  to-morroio,  great,  abundantly, 
exceedingly.  The  description  of  the  revellers  is  verified  by  quoting  their 
own  words,  as  in  ch.  22  :  13.  The  language  is  that  of  one  inviting  others 
to  join  in  a  debauch  ;  hence  the  alternation  of  the  singular  and  plural. 
N^o  is  not  merely  to  drink,  nor  even  to  be  filled,  but  to  be  drunk.  The 
futures  might  be  rendered  let  me  fetch  and  let  us  drink,  without  either 
injuring  or  bettering  the  sense. — The  last  clause  professes  or  expresses  a 
determination  to  prolong  the  revel  till  the  morrow.  The  accents  connect 
nil  Yvith  "in^  in  the  sense  of  dies  crasiinus.  Another  possible  construction 
is,  to  make  the  pronoun  ni  agree  witli  ci"i  although  preceding  it, — a  combi- 
nation less  incredible  in  tiiis  case,  because  ^iij  in  the  following  member  is 
supposed  by  some  to  agree  with  "in^  as  a  noun,  in  which  case  the  whole 
phrase  would  mean  exceeding  great  abundance.  Most  interpreters,  how- 
ever, make  "it]'?,  and  'I'x^  both  adverbs,  although  both  originally  nouns,  and 
construe  great  with  day,  a  great  day  being  naturally  applicable  to  a  day 
remarkable  for  any  thing,  as  in  the  case  before  us  for  its  revelry  ;  just  as 
we  say  in  colloquial  English,  a  high  time,  or  a  rare  time,  for  a  time  of  great 
enjoyment. 


CHAPTER    LVII.  319 


CHAPTER    LVII. 

The  righteous  who  died  during  the  old  economy  were  taken  away  from 
the  evil  to  come,  vs.  1,  2.  The  wicked  who  despised  them  were  them- 
selves proper  objects  of  contempt,  vs.  3,  4.  Their  idolatry  is  first  described 
in  literal  terms,  vs.  5,  6.  It  is  then  represented  as  a  spiritual  adultery,  vs. 
7—9.  Their  obstinate  persistency  in  sin  is  represented  as  the  cause  of  their 
hopeless  and  remediless  destruction,  vs.  10-13.  A  way  is  prepared  for 
spiritual  Israel  to  come  out  from  among  them,  v.  14.  The  hopes  of  true 
believers  shall  not  be  deferred  for  ever,  vs.  15,  16.  Even  these  must  be 
chastened  for  their  sins,  v.  17.  But  there  is  favour  in  reserve  for  all  true 
penitents,  without  regard  to  national  distinctions,  vs.  18,  19.  To  the 
incorrigible  sinner,  on  the  other  hand,  peace  is  impossible,  vs.  20,  21. 

V.  1 .  The  righteous  perisheth,  and  there  is  no  man  laying  (^it)  to  heart, 
and  men  of  mercy  are  taken  away,  loith  none  considering  (or  perceiving^ 
that  from  the  presence  of  evil  the  righteous  is  taken  aivay.  Henderson 
says  that  whether  Hezekiah  or  Josiah  be  meant  by  the  righteous,  cannot  be 
determined,  nor  indeed  whether  any  particular  individual  be  intended. 
This  doubt  may  not  appear  so  utterly  insoluble  when  we  consider  that  there 
is  no  further  reference  to  either  of  the  persons  mentioned,  nor  any  thing  like 
an  individual  description  in  the  text  or  context  ;  that  ""^l^n  is  used  gene- 
rically  for  a  whole  class  elsewhere  (e.  g.  Eccl.  3  :  17.  Ez.  IS  :  20.  Ps.  37  : 
12)  ;  and  that  the  parallel  expression  here  is  plural.  This  last  considera- 
tion, it  is  true,  would  have  no  weight  against  Tertullian  and  Cyprian,  who 
explain  the  righteous  to  be  Christ  and  men  of  mercy  his  apostles  ;  but  even 
Vitringa  speaks  of  this  hypothesis  as  nulla  specie  probahilem,  and  therefore 
needing  no  refutation.  The  terms  of  this  verse  are  specifically  applicable 
neither  to  violent  nor  natural  death  as  such  considered,  but  are  appro))riate 
to  either.  Even  Kimchi  points  out  that  tiie  righteous  is  not  here  said  to 
perish,  either  in  the  sense  of  ceasing  to  exist  or  in  that  of  ceasin'^  to  be 
happy,  but  in  that  of  being  lost  to  the  world  and  to  society.     Laying  to 

heart  is  not  merely  feeling  or  appreciating,  but  observing  and  perceivin'^ 

Men  of  mercy  is  another  description  of  the  righteous,  so  called  as  the  objects 
of  God's  mercy  and  as  being  merciful  themselves.  (Sec  IMatth.  5  :  7.) — 
The  verb  5:;0X  is  doubly  appropriate,  first  in  its  general  though  secondary 
sense  of  taking  away,  and  then  in  its  primary  specific  sense  of  gathering, 


;jO0  CHAPTER    LVII. 

i.  e.  gathering  to  one's  fatiiers  or  one's  people, — an  expression  frequently 
applied  in  the  Old  Testament  to  death,  and  especially  to  that  of  godly  men. 
(See  Gen.  49  :  29.  Judges  2  :  10.)  The  verb  is  used  absolutely  in  this 
sense  by  Moses  (Num.  20  :  26). — T^iia  means  strictly  i7i  default  or  in  the 
absence  o/(Prov.  8  :  24.  26  :  20). — Most  interpreters  give  •'^_  the  sense  of 
that,  and  understand  the  last  clause  as  stating  what  it  is  that  no  one  lays  to 
heart  or  understands,  viz.  the  fact  that  the  righteous  is  taken  away,  etc. 
Some,  however,  translate  '''^.for,  and  make  the  last  clause  a  mere  reiteration 
of  the  fact  twice  stated  in  the  first.  Upon  this  point  Hitzig's  version  and 
his  comment  are  directly  contradictory,  the  former  having  for  (^clenn)  and 
the  latter  saying  expressly,  "  "3  here  means  not  for  {denn'),  but  that  (dass)  ; 
their  death  is  observed,  but  not  its  cause."  There  is  also  a  difference  of 
opinion  as  to  ^}M'^ ,  which  some  suppose  to  mean  because  of  others  before 
(in  reference  to  time),  and  others /ro/TZ  the  face  o\' preseyice  of  So  too  the 
evil  is  by  some  understood  in  a  physical  sense,  viz.  that  of  misery  or  suffer- 
ino-,  by  others  in  a  moral  sense,  viz.  that  of  guilt  or  sin.  Those  who  adopt 
the  latter  imderstand  the  clause  to  mean  that  the  death  of  the  righteous  is 
occasioned  by  the  sins  of  the  people.  But  why  may  not  this  be  asserted  of 
the  death  of  the  sinner  likewise  ?  On  the  other  hypothesis,  the  sense  is 
either  that  the  righteous  is  destroyed  by  his  calamities,  or  that  he  is  removed 
before  they  come  upon  the  people.  To  the  latter  it  is  objected  by  Maurer, 
that  the  subsequent  context  represents  great  prosperity  as  in  reserve  for  the 
people.  But  this  objection  presupposes  an  erroneous  limitation  of  the  pas- 
sage to  the  period  of  the  exile. 

V.  2.  He  shall  go  in  peace  (or  enter  into  peace)  ;  they  shall  rest  vpon 
their  beds — icalking  straight  before  him.  The  alternation  of  the  singular 
and  plural  shows  that  the  subject  of  the  sentence  is  a  collective  person. 
Kimchi  makes  c'^^ij  the  subject  of  the  first  and  last  members,  and  regards 
the  intermediate  one  as  a  parenthesis  :  Peace  shall  go  walking  straight 
before  him  or  straight  forwards,  i.  e.  shall  conduct  him  or  escort  hiin  out  of 
this  life  to  a  place  of  rest.  Aben  Ezra  refers  the  pronoun  in  inbs  to  Jeho- 
vah, walking  before  him,  i.  e.  in  his  presence.  (Compare  Judges  18:6.) 
But  the  explanation  commonly  approved  is  that  of  Jarchi,  who  makes  this 
phrase  an  additional  description  of  the  righteous,  as  one  walking  in  his 
uprightness,  or,  as  Cocceius  expresses  it,  straight  before  him  (^qui  recta 
ante  se  inccdit).  It  seems  to  be  added  as  a  kind  of  afterthought,  to  limit 
what  immediately  precedes,  and  preclude  its  application  to  all  the  dead 
without  distinction.  The  peace  and  rest  here  meant  are  those  of  the  body 
in  the  grave  and  of  the  soul  in  heaven  ;  the  former  being  frequently  referred 
to  as  a  kind  of  pledge  and  adumbration  of  the  latter.  Vitringa  understands 
this   verse  as  stating  the  alleviations  which  attend  the  lamentable  loss  of 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  VI  I.  321 

good  men.  Ewald  regards  it  as  a  kind  of  pious  wish  analogous  to  requiescat 
in  pace  I  Gesenlus  supposes  an  antithesis  between  this  and  the  next  verse  : 
'  The  righteous  is  at  rest  (or  let  him  rest),  but  as  for  you,'  etc.  This  sugges- 
tion is  of  value  so  far  as  it  removes  the  appearance  of  abrupt  transition,  and 
shows  the  continuity  of  the  discourse. 

V.  3.  And  ye  (or  as  for  you),  draw  near  hither,  yc  sons  of  the  witch, 
seed  of  the  adulterer  and  the  harlot.  According  to  Jarchi,  these  words  are 
addressed  to  the  survivors  of  the  judgments  by  which  the  righteous  are 
described  as  having  been  removed.  They  are  summoned,  according  to  the 
same  rabbin,  to  receive  their  punishment,  but  as  Kimchi  thinks,  simply  to 
appear  before  the  judgment-seat.  (Compare  ch.  41  :  1.)  The  description 
which  follows  was  of  course  designed  to  be  extremely  opprobrious  ;  but 
interpreters  differ  as  to  the  precise  sense  of  the  terms  employed.  Gesenius 
supposes  that  instead  of  simply  charging  them  with  certain  crimes,  he  bring? 
the  charge  against  their  parents, — a  species  of  reproach  peculiarly  offensive 
to  the  orientals.  Hendewerk  supposes  this  form  of  contumely  to  have  been 
selected  for  the  purpose  of  identifying  those  who  were  immediately  addressed 
with  their  progenitors.  In  this  way  he  ingeniously  accounts  for  the  subse- 
quent description  of  idolatry,  which  Ewald  and  many  others  look  upon  as 
applicable  only  to  the  times  of  Tsaiah  himself.  Vitringa  and  the  older 
writers  generally  give  a  more  specific  meaning  to  the  Prophet's  metaphors, 
understanding  by  the  adulterer  the  idol,  by  the  harlot  the  apostate  church, 
and  by  the  children  the  corrupted  offspring  of  this  shameful  apostasy. — 
Instead  of  sorceress  or  witch,  the  Septuagint  and  Targum  have  iniquity. 
Grotius  supposes  that  they  read  ns'ii",  Rosenmiiller  nulls'.  The  Peshito 
seems  to  make  it  a  participle  of  «^5S  (afflicted).  Jerome  quotes  Theodotion 
as  retaining  the  original  word  onena,  which  is  the  common  text.  For  the 
meaning  of  the  word,  see  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  28.  The  occult  arts 
are  mentioned  as  inseparable  adjuncts  of  idolatry. — A  grammatical  difficulty 
is  presented  by  the  verb  i^STW ,  where  the  noun  iijif  might  have  been  ex- 
pected. None  of  the  modern  writers  seem  to  have  assumed  a  noun  of  that 
form,  although  not  without  analogy.  The  current  explanation  is  the  one 
adopted  by  Gesenius,  which  supposes  an  ellipsis  of  the  relative  (she  who 
committed  whoredom),  and  a  change  of  construction  from  the  participle  to 
the  finite  verb.  Luzzatto  objects  that  in  all  such  cases  the  participle  and 
the  finite  verb  have  one  and  the  same  subject.  He  accordingly  agrees 
with  Abarbenel  and  Gousset  in  explaining  <^i|^l  as  the  second  person,  the 
seed  of  an  adulterer,  and  (therefore)  thou  hast  thyself  committed  whore- 
dom. Essentially  the  same  interpretation  is  proposed  by  Piscator  and 
Cocceius. — Whoredom  and  sorcery  arc  again  combined  in  Mai.  3  :  5  and 
elsewhere. 

21 


SO)  CHAPTER    LVII. 

V.  4.  At  whom  do  you  amuse  yourselves  ?  At  whom  do  you  enlarge 
the  jnouth,  prolong  the  tongue  I  Are  you  not  children  of  rebellion  (or 
apostasy),  a  seed  of  falsehood]  Tliis  retorts  the  impious  contempt  of  the 
apostates  on  themselves.  Tliere  is  no  need,  however,  of  supposing  that 
they  had  cast  these  very  same  reproaches  on  the  godly.  The  meaning  is 
not  necessarily  that  they  were  what  they  falsely  charged  their  brethren  with 
being.  All  that  is  certainly  implied  is,  that  they  were  unworthy  to  treat 
them  with  contempt.  Jarchi  gives  ^?  52srn  the  sense  of  delighting  in, 
which  it  has  in  ch.  5S  :  11.  Job  -22  :  26.  27  :  10.  Ps.  37  :  4  ;  but  most 
interpreters  suppose  the  next  clause  to  determine  that  the  words  express 
derision.  The  opening  or  stretching  of  the  mouth  in  mockery  is  mentioned 
Ps.  22  :  S,  14.  35  :  21.  Lam.  2  :  16,  and  in  chap.  58  :  9  below.  The 
lolling  of  the  tongue  as  a  derisive  gesture  is  referred  to  by  Persius  in  poetry 
and  Livy  in  prose.  According  to  Hitzig  there  are  not  two  different  gestures 
here  described  but  one,  the  mouth  being  opened  for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting 
the  tongue.  The  form  of  expostulation  is  similar  to  that  in  ch.  37  :  23. — 
Jarchi  supposes  tlie  prophets  to  be  specially  intended  as  the  objects  of  this 
v.icked  mockery.  (See  2  Chron.  36  :  16.) — Here,  as  in  the  preceding 
verse.,  some  regard  seed  and  children  as  mere  idiomatic  pleonasms,  or  at 
most,  as  rhetorical  embellishments.  Of  those  who  understand  them  strictly, 
some  suppose  the  qualities  of  falsehood  and  apostasy  to  be  predicated  of  the 
parents,  others  of  the  children.  Both  are  probably  included  ;  they  were 
worthy  of  their  parentage,  and  diligently  filled  up  the  measure  of  their 
fathers'  iniquity.  (See  ch.  1  :  4.)  By  'a  seed  of  falsehood'  we  may 
understand  a  spurious  brood,  and  at  the  same  time  one  itself  perfidious  and 
addicted  to  a  false  religion. 

V.  5.  Iiijlamcd  (or  inflaming  yourselves)  among  the  oaks  (or  terebinths) , 
under  every  green  tree,  slaughtering  the  children  in  the  valleys,  under  the 
clefts  of  the  rocks.  Their  idolatrous  })raclices  are  now  described  in  detail. 
The  first  word  of  this  verse  properly  denotes  libidinous  excitement,  and  is 
here  used  with  reference  to  the  previous  representation  of  idolatry  as  spiritual 
whoredom  or  adultery.  The  reflexive  version  of  the  Niphal  strengthens  the 
expression,  but  is  not  required  by  usage  or  the  context. — tD^bxa  is  commonly 
translated  with  idols,  in  accordance  with  the  ancient  versions.  The  objec- 
tions are  that  3  is  not  a  natural  connective  of  the  foregoing  verb  with  its 
object,  and  that  l=x  is  constantly  employed  by  this  writer  with  direct  allusion 
to  its  proper  sense  (almighty) ,  and  in  reference  to  false  gods  only  where 
they  are  sarcastically  placed  in  opposition  to  the  true.  Maurer,  Ewald,  and 
Knobel,  have  revived  the  old  interpretation  given  by  Jarchi  and  Kimchi, 
which  gives  n'l^^^  the  sense  of  oaks  (or  terebinths),  as  in  ch.  1  :  29.  The 
objection  usually  made,  viz.  that  the  next  words  are  descriptive  of  the  place, 


CHAPTER    LVII.  323 

only  shows  how  easily  the  parallelism  may  be  made  to  sustain  either  side  of 
any  question.  The  interpreter  has  only  to  allege  that  the  words  in  question 
must  or  must  not  mean  the  same  thing  with  the  next  words,  as  the  case  may 
be,  and  his  purpose  is  accom|)lished.  This  objection  is,  moreover,  incon- 
clusive, because  it  proves  too  much  ;  for  it  equally  applies  to  the  consecutive 
expressions  in  the  last  clause,  both  of  which  are  universally  regarded  as 
descriptive  of  localities.  Hitzig  renders  the  objection  somewhat  more  plau- 
sible, by  saying  that  the  terebinth  is  necessarily  included  under  every  green 
tree  ;  but  if  the  genius  of  the  language  would  admit  of  two  consecutive 
expressions  being  perfectly  synonymous,  how  much  more  of  such  as  really 
involve  a  climax — 'among  the  terebinths,  and  not  only  so  but  under  every 
green  tree.'  Sacrificial  infanticide  is  often  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures  as  a 
rite  of  heathen  worship,  and  especially  of  that  paid  to  Moloch,  in  which  it 
seems  to  have  been  usual  to  burn  the  children  ;  but  we  find  the  word 
slaughter  frequently  applied  to  it  (see  Ez.  16  :  21.  23  :  39),  either  in  the 
wide  sense  of  slaying  (Gesenius),  or  because  the  children  were  first 
slaughtered  and  then  burnt  (Hitzig),  or  because  both  modes  of  sacrifice  were 
practised.  Hitzig  adds  very  coolly  to  his  observations  on  this  subject, 
"compare  Gen.  22,"  a  reference  which  obviously  implies  much  more  than 
the  opinion  entertained  by  some  older  writers,  that  human  sacrifices  owed 
their  origin  to  a  misapprehension  of  the  history  of  Isaac.  The  Hebrew 
bn3  is  applied  both  to  a  valley  and  a  stream  flowing  through  it.  Jerome 
has  here  torreniibus,  by  which  he  may  have  meant  their  beds  or  channels. 
According  to  Vitringa,  there  is  special  reference  to  the  great  valley  of 
Lebanon,  between  the  chains  of  Libanus  and  Antilibanus,  a  region  infamous 
for  its  idolatry.  A  much  more  natural  interpretation  is  the  one  which 
supposes  an  allusion  to  the  valleys  round  Jerusalem,  in  one  of  which,  the 
valley  of  the  son  of  Hinnom,  we  know  that  Moloch  was  adored  w  ith  human 
victims.  The  clefts  of  the  rocks,  or  cliffs  projecting  in  consequence  of 
excavations,  is  a  circumstance  perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  topography  of 
that  spot.  The  minute  description  of  idolatry  given  in  this  passage  is 
exceedingly  perplexing  to  those  writers  who  fix  the  date  of  composition  at 
the  period  of  the  exile.  Hendewerk,  as  we  have  seen,  intrepidly  main- 
tains that  the  children  are  here  charged  with  the  sins  of  their  fathers  ;  but 
along  with  this  extravagant  assertion  he  makes  one  concession  really  valu- 
able, namely,  that  the  efforts  of  Gesenius  and  Hitzig  to  reconcile  the  terms 
of  the  description  with  the  state  of  things  during  the  captivity  are  wholly 
abortive.  A  perfect  solution  of  the  difficulty  is  afforded  by  our  own 
hypothesis,  that  the  Prophet,  from  the  whole  field  of  vision  spread  before 
him,  singles  out  the  most  revolting  traits  and  images  by  which  he  could 
present  in  its  true  aspect  the  guilt  and  madness  of  apostasy  from  God. 


3-24  CHAPTER    LVII. 

V.  6.  Among  the  smooth  (stones)  of  the  volley  (or  the  brook)  is  thy 
portion  ;  they,  they,  are  thy  lot ;  also  to  them  hast  thou  poured  out  a  drink- 
offering,  thou  hast  brought  up  a  meal-off'ering.  Shall  1  for  these  things  be 
consoled  (i.  e.  satisfied  without  revenge)  ?  Thy  portion,  i.  e.  the  objects 
of  thy  choice  and  thy  affection  (Jer.  10:  16).  The  word  stones  is  correctly 
supplied  in  the  English  Version.  (See  1  Sam.  17  :  40.)  Others  supply 
places,  and  suppose  the  phrase  to  mean  open  cleared  spots  in  the  midst  of 
wooded  valleys,  places  cleared  for  the  performance  of  religious  rites.  In 
Hivour  of  this  meaning,  is  the  not  unfrequent  use  of  the  Hebrew  word  to 
signify  not  hairy,  and  in  figurative  application  to  the  earth,  not  wooded,  free 
from  trees.  According  to  this  interpretation,  which  is  that  of  Paulus,  De 
Wette,  Hitzig,  Riickert,  and  Umbreit,  the  first  clause  merely  describes  ihe 
place  where  the  idols  were  worshipped.  According  to  the  other,  which  is 
given  in  the  Targum,  and  approved  by  Aben  Ezra,  Kimchi,  Grotius, 
Clericus,  Lowth,  Rosenmiiller,  Maurer,  and  Knobel,  it  is  a  description  of 
the  idols  themselves.  Smooth  stones  may  mean  either  polished  or  anointed 
stones,  such  as  were  set  up  by  the  patriarchs  as  memorials  (Gen.  28  :  18. 
35  :  12),  and  by  the  heathen  as  objects  of  worship.  Thus  Arnobius  says, 
that  before  his  conversion  to  Christianity  he  never  saw  an  oiled  stone 
(l.ubricatum  lapidem  et  ex  olivi  junguine  sordidatmn)  without  addressing  it 
and  praying  to  it.  This  explanation  of  the  first  clause  agrees  best  with 
what  follows  and  with  the  emphatic  repetition,  they,  they,  are  thy  j)ortion. 
which  is  more  natural  in  reference  to  the  objects  than  to  the  mere  place  of 


n 


worship.  Most  writers  find  here  a  play  upon  the  double  sense  of 
{smooth  and  portion)  ;  but  Ewald  gives  to  both  the  sense  of  stone  (an  des 
Thales  Steinchen  ist  dein  Stein),  and  makes  them  the  plural  of  P^f^  a 
synonyme  of  psn  (1  Sam.  17  :  40).  Beck,  on  the  other  hand,  makes  both 
mean  part  or  portion.  Libations  and  vegetable  offerings  are  here  put  for 
offerings  in  general,  as  being  the  simplest  kinds  of  sacrifice.  There  seems 
to  be  another  lusus  verborum  in  the  use  of  the  word  cnsx,  which  may  either 
mean  to  remain  satisfied  without  vengeance,  or  to  satisfy  one's  self  by  taking 
it.      (See  ch.  1  :  24.) 

V.  7.  O71  a  high  and  elevated  mountain  thou  hast  placed  thy  bed ;  also 
there  (or  even  thither)  hast  thou  gone  up  to  offer  sacrifice.  The  figure  of 
adulterous  attachment  is  resumed.  (Compare  Ez.  16  :  24.  25  :  31.)  That 
the  mountain  is  not  used  as  a  mere  figure  for  an  elevated  spot  is  clear  from 
the  obvious  antithesis  between  it  and  the  valleys  before  mentioned.  Still 
less  ground  is  there  for  supposing  any  reference  to  the  worship  of  mountains 
themselves.  By  the  bed  here,  Spencer  understands  the  couch  on  which  the 
ancients  reclined  at  their  sacrificial  feasts.     All  other  writers  seem  to  give  it 


CHAPTER    LVII.  325 

the  same  sense  as  in  Prov.  7  :  17  and  Ezek.  23  :  17.  In  the  last  clause 
the  figure  is  resolved  and  making  the  bed  explained  to  mean  offering  sacrifice. 
Knobel  supposes  a  particular  allusion  to  the  labour  of  ascending  mountains 
as  a  proof  of  self-denying  zeal  in  the  worshipper. 

V.  8.  And  behind  the  door  and  the  dooi'-jjost  thou  hast  placed  thy 
memorial,  for  aioay  from  me  thou  hast  uncovered  (thyself  or  thy  bed),  and 
hast  gone  up.  thou  hast  enlarged  thy  bed  and  hast  covenanted  from  them, 
thou  hast  loved  their  bed,  thou  hast  provided  room.  Interpreters  are  much 
divided  as  to  the  particular  expressions  of  this  very  obscure  verse,  although 
agreed  in  understanding  it  as  a  description  of  the  grossest  idolatry. 
Gesenius  and  Maurer  explain  '^"^t  as  meaning  memory,  by  which  the 
former  understands  posthumous  fame  or  notoriety,  the  latter  something 
cherished  or  remembered  with  affection,  meaning  here  the  idol  as  a  beloved 
object.  The  same  sense  is  obtained  in  another  way  by  those  who  make 
the  word  mean  a  memorial,  or  that  which  brings  to  mind  an  absent  object. 
In  this  sense  the  image  of  a  false  god  may  be  reckoned  its  memoria]. 
Grotius  and  Hitzig  suppose  an  allusion  to  Deut.  6  ;  9,  the  former  supposing 
that  the  idolaters  are  here  described  as  doing  just  the  opposite  of  what  is 
there  required,  the  latter  that  the  Prophet  represents  them  as  putting  the 
required  memorial  of  Jehovah's  sole  divinity  out  of  sight,  by  going  to  an 
inner  apartment.  A  still  more  natural  application  of  the  same  sense  would 
be  to  suppose  that  they  are  here  described  as  thrusting  the  memorial  of 
Jehovah  into  a  corner  to  make  room  for  that  of  the  beloved  idol.  Some 
suppose  a  special  reference  to  the  worship  of  Penates,  Lares,  or  household 
gods.  The  rest  of  the  verse  describes  idolatry  as  adulterous  intercourse. 
tn:2  n-=n  has  been  variously  explained  to  mean,  thou  hast  covenanted  with 
them — thou  hast  bargained  for  a  reward  from  them — thou  hast  made  a 
covenant  with  some  of  them.  The  masculine  form  n-i:n  is  used  for  the 
feminine  as  in  ch.  15:5.  Hitzig  supposes  this  to  have  been  usual  for 
Vav  conversive.  (Compare  Ewald's  H.  G.  p.  643.  S.  G.  >§,  234.)  The 
most  probable  interpretation  of  the  last  words  in  the  verse  is  that  which 
gives  to  t;  the  same  sense  as  in  ch.  56  :  5.  Tliis  is  strongly  favoured  by 
the  parallel  expression  "-=1"^  r-n-n.  Others  understand  it  to  mean, 
wherever  thou  hast  seen  (their)  memorial  or  monument ;  others,  wherever 
thou  seest  a  hand  (beckoning  or  inviting  thee).  The  sense  gratuitously  put 
upon  the  phrase  by  Doderlein,  and  the  praises  given  him  for  the  discovery, 
are  characteristic  of  neological  aesthetics. 

V.  9.  And  thou  hast  gone  to  the  king  in  oil  and  hast  multiplied  thine 
unguents,  and  hast  sent  thine  ambassadors  even  to  a  far-off  (land),  and  hast 
gone   (or  sent)  down  even  to  hell.      The  first  verb  has  been  variously 


326  CHAPTER    LVII. 

explained  as  meaning  to  see,  to  look  around,  to  appear,  to  be  adorned,  to 
sing,  to  carry  gifts,  which  last  is  founded  on  the  analogy  of  the  noun  ir^vrn 
a  gift  or  present  (1  Sam.  9  :  7).  Gesenius  derives  the  noun  from  this  verb 
in  the  sense  of  going  with  or  carrying,  and  the  modern  writers  generally 
acquiesce  in  this  interpretation  founded  on  an  Arabic  analogy.  By  the  Icing 
some  understand  the  king  of  Babylon  or  Egypt,  and  refer  the  clause  to  the 
eagerness  with  which  the  Prophet's  contemporaries  sought  out  foreign 
alliances.  Most  writers  understand  it  as  a  name  for  idols  generally,  or  for 
Moloch  in  particular.  '"^^.^  is  commonly  exj)laincd  to  mean  tvith  oil  or 
ointment  (as  a  gift)  ;  but  Hitzig  understands  it  to  mean  in  oil,  i.  e.  anointed, 
beautified,  adorned.  Upon  the  explanation  of  this  phrase  of  course  depends 
that  of  the  next,  where  the  unguents  are  said  to  be  multiplied,  either  in  the 
way  of  gifts  lo  others  or  as  means  of  self-adornment.  Gesenius  and  the 
later  writers  make  ^V^'^^^  qualify  "^nsqri  understood  as  a  kind  of  auxiliary, 
thou  host  sent  down  deep  to  hell,  i.  e.  to  the  lower  world,  as  opposed  to 
heaven,  of  wliich  Moloch  was  esteemed  the  king.  (See  the  same  construc- 
tion of  the  verb  in  Jer.  13  :  18.)  It  is  much  more  natural,  however,  to  give 
it  an  independent  meaning  as  exjn-essive  of  extreme  indignation  and  abhor- 
rence. There  is  no  need  of  ascribing  a  reflexive  meaning  to  the  Hiphil,  as 
the  same  end  may  be  gained  by  supplying  wai/  or  some  other  noun  denoting 
conduct.  INIanrer  wonders  that  any  interpreter  should  fail  to  see  that  the 
simplest  explanation  of  this  clause  is  that  which  makes  it  signify  extreme 
remoteness.  But  nothing  could  in  fact  be  more  unusual  or  unnatural  than 
the  expression  of  this  idea  by  the  j)hrase,  humbling  even  to  Sheol. 

V.  10.  In  the  greatness  of  thy  icay  (or  the  abundance  of  thy  travel) 
thou  hast  laboured ;  {but)  thou  hast  not  said,  There  is  no  hope.  Thou  hast 
found  the  life  of  thy  hand ;  therefore  thou  art  not  iveak.  Whether  way 
be  understood  as  a  figure  for  the  whole  course  of  life,  or  as  involving  a 
specific  allusion  to  the  journeys  mentioned  in  v.  9,  the  general  sense  is  still 
the  same,  viz.  that  no  exertion  in  the  service  of  her  false  gods  could  weary 
or  discourage  her.  This  is  so  obviously  the  meaning  of  the  whole,  that  the 
common  version  of  tp'j^i  (thou  art  ivearied)  seems  to  be  precluded,  the  rather 
as  the  verb  may  be  used  to  denote  the  cause  as  well  as  the  effect,  i.  e.  exer- 
tion no  less  than  fatigue.  Lowih  reverses  the  declaration  of  the  text  by 
omitting  the  negative  (^thou  host  said)  on  the  authority  of  a  single  manu- 
scrii)t,  in  which  the  text,  as  Kocher  well  observes,  was  no  doubt  conjec- 
turally  changed  in  order  to  conform  it  to  Jer.  2  :  25.  18  :  12.  In  both 
these  places  the  verb  'i'xi:  is  employed  as  it  is  here  impersonally,  despcratum 
est,  a  form  of  speech  to  which  we  have  no  exact  equivalent  in  English. — 
Saadias  and  Koppe  give  r^n  the  sense  of  animal  or  beast,  in  reference  to 
idols  of  that  form.     All  other  writers  seem  airreed  that  the  essential  idea 


CHAPTERLVII.  327 

which  the  whole  phrase  conveys  is  that  of  strength.  Some  accordingly 
attach  this  specific  sense  to  r^n ,  others  to  "i^  ;  but  it  rather  belongs  to  the 
two  in  combination.  In  translation  this  essential  sense  may  be  conveyed 
under  several  different  forms  :  Thou  hast  found  thy  hand  still  alive,  or  still 
able  to  sustain  life,  etc.  i^^fj  does  not  merely  mean  to  be  sick  or  to  be 
grieved,  but  to  be  weak  or  weakened,  as  in  Judg.  16  :  7.  11  :  17. — Accord- 
ing to  Luzzatlo,  ivay  means  specifically  wicked  way,  as  in  Prov.  31:3. 

V.  11.  And  whom  hast  thou  feared  and  been  afraid  of,  that  thou 
shouldest  lie  1  and  me  thou  hast  not  remembered,  thou  hast  not  called  to 
mind  (or  laid  to  heart).  Is  it  not  (because)  1  hold  my  jjeace,  and  that  of 
old,  that  thou  wilt  not  fear  mel  De  Dieu,  Cocceius,  and  Vitringa,  under- 
stand this  as  ironical,  and  as  meaning  that  the  fear  which  they  affected  as 
a  ground  for  their  forsaking  God  had  no  foundation.  Gesenius  and  others 
understand  it  as  a  serious  and  consolatory  declaration  that  they  had  no 
cause  to  fear.  Hiizig  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  mixture  of  idolatrous 
worship  with  the  forms  of  the  true  religion  in  the  exile.  With  the  excep- 
tion of  the  last  gratuitous  restriction,  this  agrees  well  with  the  form  of  expres- 
sion, and  may  be  applied  to  ail  hypocritical  professors  of  the  truth.  They 
have  no  real  fear  of  God  ;  why  then  should  they  affect  to  serve  him  ?  His 
forbearance  only  served  to  harden  and  embolden  them.  '  Have  I  not  long 
kept  silence  ?  It  cannot  be  that  you  fear  me.'  There  is  no  need,  there- 
fore, of  making  the  last  clause  interrogative,  as  Ewald  does,  wilt  thou  not 
fear  me  1  Still  more  gratuitous  and  violent  is  De  Wette's  construction, 
'  thou  needest  not  have  feared  me.'  This  is  certainly  no  better  than  Luther's 
interrogative  constiuction  of  the  last  clause,  '  do  you  think  that  I  will  always 
hold  my  peace  ?'  Luzzatto  renders  "'r'l^v  "'^  ^^^^^  ^''^^"  mightcst  fail,  and 
refers  to  ch.  58  :  11.  Rut  waters  are  there  said  to  deceive  llie  expectation 
by  their  failure,  an  expression  which  is  utterly  inapplicable  to  the  failure  of 
the  strength.  Instead  of  csi-r?,  Lowth  reads  C"'^^'"?^  and  hide  (my  eyes), 
with  the  noun  omitted  as  in  Ps.  10  :  I.  Henderson  also  thinks  the  common 
reading  justly  suspected,  because  the  Complutensian  and  other  editions,  with 
a  number  of  manuscripts,  read  c^:":^ .  But  this  is  merely  the  defective 
orthography  of  the  common  text,  and  precisely  the  kind  of  variation  which 
most  frequently  occurs  in  Hebrew  manuscripts.  Kocher,  moreover,  has 
shown  to  the  satisfaction  of  most  later  writers,  that  the  i  before  nb'r-2  is 
equivalent  to  et  quidem  in  Latin  or  and  that  too  in  English. — The  use  of 
niin  is  the  same  as  in  ch.  64  :  11.  65  :  6. — The  image  is  identical  with 
that  presented  in  ch.  42  :  14.  Knobel  contrives  to  limit  the  passage  to  the 
Babylonish  exile,  by  explaining  this  verse  as  a  declaration  that  the  Jews  had 
no  need  of  the  Bal)ylonian  idols  to  protect  them,  and  alleging  that  a  portion 
of  the  captives  had  renounced  the  worship  of  Jehovah  because  they  thought 


323  CHAPTER    LVII. 

his  power  insufficient  to  deliver  them.  In  the  same  taste  and  spirit  he 
explains  cbir^  to  mean  since  the  beginning  of  the  exile. — Compare  with 
this  verse  ch.  40  :  21  and  51  :  12,  13. 

V.  12.  I  ivill  declare  thy  righteousness  and  thy  ivories,  and  they  shall 
not  profit  (or  avail)  thee.  Lowth  reads  my  righteousness,  on  the  authority 
of  the  Peshito  and  a  few  manuscripts.  Hendewerk  understands  ~(rii;?1^  to 
mean  thy  desert,  thy  righteous  doom:  Ewald,  thy  justification;  Umbreit, 
thy  righteousness,  which  I  will  give  thee  notwithstanding  thy  unworthiness. 
Gesenius  and  Knobel  still  adhere  to  their  imaginary  sense  of  happiness, 
salvation,  which  is  not  only  arbitrary  in  itself  but  incoherent  with  the  next 
clause,  which  they  are  obliged  to  understand  as  meaning,  as  for  thy  own 
works  they  can  profit  thee  nothing.  Knobel,  however,  follows  Hitzig  in 
making  thy  ivorks  mean  thy  idols,  elsewhere  called  the  work  of  men's  fingers. 
De  Dieu  makes  the  last  clause  an  answer  to  the  first.  Shall  I  declare  thy 
righteousness  and  works  ?  They  will  profit  thee  nothing.  But  this,  in  the 
absence  of  the  form  of  interrogation,  is  entirely  arbitrary.  The  earlier 
writers  who  retain  the  sense  of  ■^I^'J'S  for  the  most  part  follow  Jerome  and 
Zwingle  in  making  the  first  clause  ironical.  But  this  is  unnecessary,  as  the 
simplest  and  most  obvious  construction  is  in  all  respects  the  most  satisfactory. 
I  will  declare  thy  righteousness,  i.  e.  I  will  show  clearly  whether  thou  art 
righteous,  and  in  order  to  do  this  I  must  declare  thy  ivorks ;  and  if  this  is 
done,  they  cannot  profit  thee,  because  instead  of  justifymg  they  will  con- 
demn thee.  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  of  supposing  i  at  the  beginning  of 
the  last  clause  to  mean  which,  for,  that,  or  any  thing  but  and.  One  of  the 
latest  writers  on  the  passage,  Thenius,  agrees  with  one  of  the  oldest,  Jarchi, 
in  explaining  the  first  clause  to  mean,  I  will  show  how  you  may  be  or  ought 
to  be  righteous  ;  but  this  is  sufficiently  refuted  by  a  simple  statement  of  the 
true  sense,  which  has  been  already  given. 

V.  13.  In  thy  crying  (i.  e.  when  tI:ou  criest  for  help),  let  thy  gatherings 
save  thee  !  And  (yet)  all  of  them  the  wind  shall  take  up  and  a  breath 
shall  take  away,  and  the  (one)  trusting  in  me  shall  inherit  the  land  and 
possess  my  holy  mountain.  This  is  merely  a  strong  contrast  between  the 
impotence  of  idols  and  the  power  of  Jehovah  to  protect  their  followers 
respectively.  Hitzig,  without  a  change  of  sense,  makes  Ty;^'^1  an  ironical 
exclamation,  the.y  shall  save  thee !  This  is  much  better  than  De  Wette's 
interrogative  construction,  will  they  save  theel  which  is  altogether  arbitrary. 
Most  of  the  modern  writers  follow  Jarchi  in  explaining  T|':^'t2)5  to  mean  thy 
gatherings  of  gods,  thy  whole  pantheon,  as  Gesenius  expresses  it,  so  called, 
as  Maurer  thinks,  because  collected  from  all  nations.  (Compare  Jer.  2  :  28.) 
Knobel  denies  that  there  was  any  such  collection,  or  that  gods  could  be 


CHAPTERLVII.  329 

described  as  blown  away,  and  therefore  goes  back  to  Vltringa's  explanation 
of  the  word  as  meaning  armies,  i.  e.  as  he  thinks  those  of  Babylon,  in  which 
the  idolatrous  Jews  trusted  to  deliver  them  from  Cyrus,  and  which  might 
therefore  be  correctly  called  their  gatherings  !  It  may  be  questioned 
whether  any  of  these  explanations  is  entitled  to  the  preference  above  that 
of  Aben  Ezra,  who  appears  to  understand  the  word  generically,  as  denoting 
all  that  they  could  scrape  together  for  their  own  security,  including  idols, 
armies,  and  all  other  objects  of  reliance.  This  exposition  is  the  more  enti- 
tled to  regard,  because  the  limitation  of  the  passage  to  the  exile  is  entirely 
gratuitous,  and  it  is  evidently  levelled  against  all  unbelieving  dependence 
upon  any  thing  but  God. — In  the  consecution  of  ^3^J  and  H^"i  there  is  a 
climax  :  even  a  wind  is  not  required  for  the  purpose ;  a  mere  breath  would 
be  sufficient.  This  fine  stroke  is  effaced  by  J.  D.  Michaelis's  interpretation 
of  the  second  word  as  meaning  vapour,  and  the  whole  clause  as  descriptive 
of  evaporation.  The  promise  of  the  last  clause  is  identical  with  that  in 
ch.  49  :  8.  60  :  21.  65  :  9.  Ps.  37  :  11.  69  :  37,  38.  Matt.  5  :  5.  Rev. 
5  :  10. — Those  who  restrict  the  passage  to  the  Babylonish  exile  must  of 
course  explain  the  promise  as  relating  merely  to  the  restoration  ;  but  the 
context  and  the  usage  of  the  Scriptures  is  in  favour  of  a  wider  explanation, 
in  which  the  possession  of  the  land  is  an  appointed  symbol  of  the  highest 
blessings  which  are  in  reserve  for  true  believers  here  and  hereafter. 

V.  14.  And  he  shall  say,  Cast  up,  cast  up,  clear  the  ivai/,  take  up  the 
stumbling-block  from  the  way  of  my  people  !  Lowth  and  J.  D.  Michaelis 
read  "i^xi  (^then  ivill  1  say),  the  correctness  of  which  change  Lowth  alleges 
to  be  plain  from  the  pronoun  my  in  the  last  clause,  a  demonstration  which 
appears  to  have  had  small  effect  upon  succeeding  writers. — Gesenius  and 
Ewald  make  ^Jdx  impersonal,  they  say,  one  says,  or  it  is  said.  Vitringa  in 
like  manner  long  before  had  paraphrased  it  thus,  exit  vox ;  and  Aben  Ezra 
earlier  still  had  proposed  substantially  the  same  thing,  by  supplying  X';ii>fl  as 
the  subject  of 'n^x .  Maurer  agrees  with  the  English  Version  in  connecting 
this  verb  with  the  foreo-oinff  sentence  and  making  it  agree  with  t^tinn  the 
one  trusting.  The  sense  will  then  be  that  the  man  whose  faith  is  thus 
rewarded  will  express  his  joy  when  he  beholds  the  promise  verified.  Hitzig 
thinks  it  equally  evident,  however,  that  Jehovah  is  the  speaker ;  and  Umbreit 
further  recommends  this  hypothesis  by  ingeniously  combining  it  with  what 
is  said  of  the  divine  forbearance  in  v.  11.  He  who  had  long  been  silent 
speaks  at  last,  and  that  to  announce  the  restoration  of  his  people.  The 
image  here  presented,  and  the  form  of  the  expression,  are  the  same  as  in 
ch.  35  :  8.  40  :  3.  49  :  1 1.  6-2  :  10.  Knobel  is  not  ashamed  to  make  the 
verse  mean  that  the  way  of  the  returning  captives  home  from  Babylon  shall 
be  convenient  and  agreeable.     There  is  certainly  not  much  to  choose,  in 


330  CFIAPTER    LVII. 

point  of  taste  and  exegetical  discretion  between  this  liypothesis  and  that  of 
Vitringa,  who  labours  to  find  references  to  the  reformation  and  the  subse- 
quent efforts  made  by  ministers  and  magistrates  to  take  away  all  scandals 
both  of  doctrine  and  discipline,  with  special  allusion,  as  he  seems  to  think, 
to  the  hundred  grievances  presented  to  Pope  Adrian  by  the  German  princes 
in  1523.  Such  interpreters  have  no  right  to  despise  each  other ;  for  the  only 
error  with  w  hich  either  can  be  charged  is  that  of  fixing  upon  one  specific 
instance  of  the  thing  foretold  and  making  that  the  whole  theme  and  the  sole 
theme  of  a  prophecy,  which  in  design  as  well  as  hct  is  perfectly  unlimited 
to  any  one  event  or  period,  yet  perfectly  defined  as  a  description  of  God's 
mode  of  dealing  with  his  church  and  with  those  who  although  in  it  are 
not  of  it. 

V.  15.  For  thus  saith  (he  High  and  Exalted  One,  inhabiting  eternity, 
and  Holy  is  his  name  :  On  high  and  holy  ivill  I  dwell,  and  with  the  broken 
and  humble  of  sjjirit,  to  revive  the  spirit  of  the  humble,  and  to  revive  the 
heart  of  the  broken  (or  contrite  ones).  This  verse  assigns  a  reason  why 
the  foregoing  promise  might  be  trusted,  notwithstanding  the  infinite  disparity 
between  the  giver  and  the  objects  of  his  favour.  Notwithstanding  the  inti- 
mate connexion  of  the  verses,  there  is  no  need  of  referring  thus  saith  to  what 
goes  before,  as  if  he  had  said,  these  assurances  are  uttered  by  the  High  and 
Exalted  One.  Analogy  and  usage  necessarily  connect  them  with  what 
follows,  the  relation  of  the  verse  to  that  before  it  being  clearly  indicated  by 
the  ybr  at  the  beginning.  You  need  not  hesitate  to  trust  the  promise  which 
is  involved  in  this  command,  for  the  High  and  Holy  One  has  made  the  fol- 
lowing solemn  declaration. — The  only  reason  for  translating  xia?  exalted 
rather  than  lofty,  is  that  the  former  retains  the  partici[)ial  form  of  the  origi- 
nal. The  same  two  epithets  are  joined  in  ch.  6:1,  which  is  regarded  by 
the  modern  critics  as  the  oldest  extant  composition  of  the  genuine  Isaiah. 
J.  D.  Michaelis  disregards  the  masoretic  accents,  and  explains  the  next 
words  as  meaning  that  his  name  is  the  inliabitant  of  eternity  and  the  sanc- 
tuary, which  last  he  regards  as  a  hendiadys  for  the  everlasting  sanctuary 
i.  e.  heaven  as  distinguislied  from  material  and  temporary  structures.  Luz- 
zatto  gives  the  same  construction  of  the  clause,  but  supposes  the  noun  "i? 
(like  the  cognate  preposition)  to  be  applicable  to  space  as  well  as  lime,  and 
in  this  case  to  denote  infinite  height,  which  sense  he  likewise  attaches  to 
D^isi  when  predicated  of  the  hills  etc.  All  other  modern  writers  follow  the 
accentuation,  making  holy  the  predicate  and  name  the  subject  of  a  distinct 
proposition.  On  this  hypothesis,  '^Jin^v  may  either  be  an  adjective  qualify- 
ing ca  ,  his  name  is  holy,  i.  e.  divine  or  infinitely  above  every  other  name ; 
or  it  may  be  absolutely  used  and  qualify  Jehovah  understood,  his  name  is 
Holy  or  the  Holy  One.     The  ambiguity  in  English  is  exactly  copied  from 


C  H  AP  T  E  R    L  V  I  r.  33I 

the  Hebrew. — As  niia  is  not  an  adjective  but  a  substantive  denoting  a  high 
place,  the  following  liii;?  must  either  be  referred  to  cip?3  understood  or  con- 
strued with  nin?2  itself,  a  height,  and  that  a  holy  one,  will  I  inhabit. — Ewald 
takes  rxi  at  the  beginning  of  the  last  clause  as  a  sign  of  the  nominative 
absolute,  and  the  infinitives  as  expressive  of  necessity  or  obligation  :  And 
as  for  the  broken  and  contrite  of  spirit,  (it  is  necessary)  to  revive  etc. 
Henderson  and  Knobel  regard  rx  as  the  objective  particle  showing  what 
follows  to  be  governed  directly  by  the  verb  "S'^J*:  'I  inhabit  (or  dwell  in) 
the  broken  and  humble  of  spirit.'  This  would  be  more  natural  if  the  other 
objects  of  the  same  verb  were  preceded  by  the  particle  ;  but  as  this  is  not 
the  case,  the  most  satisfactory  construction  is  the  common  one,  which  takes 
rx  as  a  preposition  meaning  with. — The  future  meaning  given  to  "iSitix  by 
Lowth  is  strictly  accurate  and  more  expressive  than  the  present,  as  it  inti- 
mates that  notwithstanding  God's  condescension  he  will  still  maintain  his 
dignity.  The  idea  of  habitual  or  perpetual  residence  is  still  implied. — The 
reviving  of  the  spirit  and  the  heart  is  a  common  Hebrew  phrase  for  conso- 
lation and  encouragement. — Hitzig  denies  that  contrition  and  humility  are 
here  propounded  as  conditions  or  prerequisites,  and  understands  the  clause 
as  a  description  of  the  actual  distress  and  degradation  of  the  exiles. — Vitringa 
finds  here  a  specific  reference  to  the  early  sufferers  in  the  cause  of  reforma- 
tion, such  as  the  Waldenses  and  Bohemian  Brethren. — Compare  with  this 
verse  ch.  33  :  5.  63  :  15.  66  :  1,  2.  Ps.  22  :  4.   113  :  5,  6.   13S  :  6. 

V.  16.  For  not  to  eternity  will  I  contend,  and  not  to  perpetuity  will  I 
be  wroth  ;  for  the  spirit  from  before  me  will  faint,  and  the  souls  (which) 
I  have  made.  A  reason  for  exercising  mercy  is  here  drawn  from  the  frailty 
of  the  creature.  (Compare  ch.  42:  3.  Ps.  78  :  38,  39.  103  :  9,  14.)  Suf- 
fering being  always  represented  in  Scripture  as  the  consequence  of  sin,  its 
infliction  is  often  metaphorically  spoken  of  as  a  divine  quarrel  or  controversy 
with  the  sufferer.  (See  above,  ch.  27  :  8,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies, 
p.  461.) — The  verb  Cii-^ll  has  been  very  variously  exi)lained,  as  meaning 
to  go  forth  (Septuagint  and  Vulgate),  return  (De  Dieu),  have  mercy  (Cap- 
pellus),  etc.  ;  but  the  only  sense  sustained  by  etymology  and  usage  is  that 
ofcov(M-lng.  The  Targum  seems  to  make  the  clause  descriptive  of  a  resur- 
rection similar  to  that  in  Ezekiel's  vision,  the  life-giving  Spirit  covering  the 
bones  with  flesh  and  breathing  into  the  nostiils  the  breath  of  life.  Cocceius 
understands  it  of  the  Spirit  by  his  influences  covering  the  earth  as  the  waters 
cover  the  sea  (ch.  11:9).  Clericus  makes  it  descriptive  of  the  origin  of 
man,  in  which  the  spirit  covers  or  clothes  itself  with  matter.  The  modern 
writers  are  agreed  in  making  it  intransitive  and  elliptical,  the  full  expression 
being  that  of  covering  with  darkness,  metaphorically  applied  to  extreme 
depression,  faintness,  and  stupor.     Maurer  translates  it  even  here,  caligine 


332  CH  AP  TE  R    L  VI  I. 

obvolviiur.  The  figurative  use  is  clear  from  the  analogy  of  Ps.  61:  3. 
102  :  1,  compared  with  that  of  the  reflexive  form  in  Ps.  107  :  5.  143  :  4. 
Jon.  2  :  8.  Rosenmiiller  follows  Jarchi  in  giving  "'S  the  sense  of  when,  and 
takes  the  last  clause  as  a  promise  :  when  the  spirit  from  before  me  faints,  I 
graut  a  breathing  time  (respirationcs  concedo).  The  credit  of  this  last  inter- 
pretation is  perhaps  due  to  Grotius,  who  translates  the  clause,  et  veniulum 
faciam.  But  n^'i'3  is  evidently  used  as  an  equivalent  to  t%}_  in  Prov.  20  :  27, 
and  is  here  the  parallel  expression  to  nn .  Lowth's  translation  limng  souls 
multiplies  words  without  expressing  the  exact  sense  of  the  Hebrew,  which  is 
breaths.  The  ellipsis  of  the  relative  is  the  one  so  often  mentioned  hereto- 
fore as  common  both  in  Hebrew  and  English.  From  before  me  is  connected 
by  the  accents  with  the  verb  to  faint,  and  indicates  God's  presence  as  the 
cause  of  the  depression.  A  more  perfect  parallelism  would,  however,  be 
obtained  by  understanding /rom  before  me  as  referring  to  the  origin  of  human 
life  and  as  corresponding  to  the  words  ivhich  I  have  made  in  the  other  mem- 
ber. Umbreit's  explanation  of  the  verse,  as  meaning  that  God  cannot  be 
for  ever  at  enmity  with  any  of  his  creatures,  is  as  old  as  Kimchi,  but  without 
foundation  in  the  text  and  inconsistent  with  the  uniform  teaching  of  the 
Scriptures. 

V.  17.  For  his  covetous  iniquity  I  am  tvroth  and  ivill  smite  him,  (I 
will)  hide  me  and  will  be  u-roth ;  for  he  has  gone  on  turning  away  (i.  e. 
persevering  in  apostasy)  in  the  way  of  his  heart  (or  of  his  own  inclination). 
The  futures  in  the  first  clause  show  that  both  the  punishment  and  mercy 
are  still  future.  The  interpreters  have  generally  overlooked  the  fact  that 
the  1  before  these  futures  is  not  Vav  conversive,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the 
text  or  context  to  require  or  justify  either  an  arbitrary  change  of  pointing  or 
an  arbitrary  disregard  of  the  difference  between  the  tenses. — The  first  phrase 
in  the  verse  ("i-^S  V?)  has  been  very  variously  understood.  Lowth  says 
the  usual  meaning  of  the  second  noun  would  here  be  "quite  beside  the  pur- 
pose," and  accordingly  omits  the  suffix  and  takes  2;:S3  as  an  adverb  meaning 
for  a  short  time ;  of  which  it  can  only  be  said  that  the  criticism  and  lexico- 
graphy are  worthy  of  each  other.  Koppe  adopts  another  desperate  expedient 
by  calling  in  the  Arabic  analogy  to  prove  that  the  true  sense  of  2.'33  is  scor- 
tatio.  J,  D.  Michaelis  and  Henderson  make  one  noun  simply  qualify  the 
other  and  explain  the  whole  as  meaning  his  accumulated  guilt  or  his  exor- 
bitant iniquity.  Vitringa  and  Gesenius  suppose  covetousness  to  be  here 
used  in  a  wide  sense  for  all  selfish  desires  or  undue  attachment  to  the  things 
of  time  and  sense,  a  usage  which  they  think  may  be  distinctly  traced  both 
in  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  (See  Ps.  119 :  36.  Ez.  33  :  31.  1  Tim. 
6  :  10.  Eph.  5  :  5.)  Perhaps  the  safest  and  most  satisfactory  hypothesis 
is  that  of  Maurer,  who  adheres  to  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  but  supposes 


CHAPTERLVII.  333 

covetousness  to  be  here  considered  as  a  temptation  and  incentive  to  other 
forms  of  sin. — The  singular  pronouns  his  and  him  refer  to  the  collective 
noun  people,  or  rather  to  Israel  as  an  ideal  person. — ^Pion  is  an  adverbial, 
rendered  equivalent  in  this  case  by  its  collocation  to  the  futures  which  pre- 
cede and  follow.  In  the  last  clause  the  writer  suddenly  reverts  from  the 
future  to  the  past,  in  order  to  assign  the  cause  of  the  infliction  threatened  in 
the  first.  This  connexion  can  be  rendered  clear  in  English  only  by  the  use 
of  the  word  for,  although  the  literal  translation  would  be  and  he  went. 
Jarchi's  assumption  of  a  transposition  is  entirely  unnecessary.  Hendewerk's 
translation,  but  he  went  on,  rests  upon  the  false  assumption  that  the  first 
clause  is  historical.  Luther  seems  to  understand  the  last  clause  as  describ- 
ing the  effect  of  the  divine  stroke  (r/a  gingen  sie  hin  und  her).  With  the 
closing  words  of  this  clause  compare  ch.  42  :  24.  53  :  6.  56  :  11.  65  :  12. 
— The  best  refutation  of  Vitringa's  notion,  that  this  verse  has  special  refer- 
ence to  the  period  from  the  death  of  Charles  the  Bald  to  the  beginning  of 
the  Reformation,  is  suggested  by  his  own  apology  for  not  going  into  the 
details  of  the  fulfilment:   "  Narrandi  nullus  hie  finis  est  si  inceperis." 

V.  18.  His  ways  I  have  seen,  and  I  icill  heal  him,  and  will  guide  him, 
and  restore  comforts  unto  him  and  to  his  mourners.  The  healing  here 
meant  is  forgiveness  and  conversion,  as  correctly  explained  by  Kimchi,  with 
a  reference  to  ch.  6:10  and  Ps.  41:5.  This  obvious  meaning  of  the 
figure  creates  a  difficulty  in  explaining  the  foregoing  words  so  as  to  make 
the  connexion  appear  natural.  Gesenius  supposes  an  antithesis,  and  makes 
the  particle  adversative.  'I  have  seen  his  (evil)  ways,  but  I  will  (never- 
theless) heal  him.'  There  is  then  a  promise  of  gratuitous  forgiveness  similar 
to  that  in  ch.  43  :  25  and  48  :  9.  The  Targum  puts  a  favourable  sense  on 
ivays,  as  meaning  his  repentance  and  conversion.  So  Jarchi,  I  have  seen 
his  humiliation  ;  and  Ewald,  I  have  seen  his  patient  endurance  of  trial. 
Hitzig  strangely  understands  the  words  to  mean  that  God  saw  punishment 
to  be  without  effect  and  therefore  pardoned  him,  and  cites  in  illustration 
Gen.  8:  21,  where  the  incorrigible  wickedness  of  men  is  assigned  as  a 
reason  for  not  again  destroying  them.  But  even  if  this  sense  were  correct 
and  natural  considered  in  itself,  it  could  hardly  be  extracted  from  the  words 
here  used. — Knobel  supposes  ways  to  mean  neither  good  nor  evil  works  but 
sufferings,  the  length  of  which,  without  regard  to  guilt  or  innocence,  induced 
Jehovah  to  deliver  them. — /  will  guide  him  is  supposed  by  Hitzig  to  mean 
I  will  guide  him  as  a  shepherd  guides  his  flock  through  the  wirderness.  (See 
ch.  48  :  21.  49:  10.)  But  as  this  does  not  agree  with  the  mention  of  con- 
solation and  of  mourners  in  the  other  clause,  it  is  better  to  rest  in  the  general 
sense  of  gracious  and  providential  guidance.   (Compare  Ps.  73:24.)  Clericus 


334  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  V  I  I . 

rendt-rs  \\  feci  quiescere,  In  reference  to  the  rest  of  the  exiles  in  their  own 
land.  This  interpretation,  which  is  mentioned  although  not  approved  by 
Jarchi,  supposes  an  arbitrary  change  at  least  of  vowels  so  as  to  derive  the 
word  from  »!!^5. — The  promise  to  restore  consolation  implies  not  only  that  it 
had  been  once  enjoyed  but  also  that  it  should  compensate  for  the  intervening 
sorrows,  as  the  Hebrew  word  means  properly  to  make  good  or  indenmify. — 
The  addition  of  the  words  and  to  his  mourners  has  led  to  a  dispute  among 
interpreters,  whether  the  writer  had  in  mind  two  distinct  classes  of  sufferers 
or  only  one.  Cocceius  adopts  the  former  supposition  and  assumes  a  dis- 
tinction in  the  cliurcii  itself.  Others  understand  by  his  mourners  those  who 
mourned  for  him,  and  Henderson  applies  it  specifically  to  the  heathen  prose- 
lytes who  sympathized  with  Israel  in  exile.  Hitzig  and  Knobel  understand 
the  "1  as  meaning  and  especially,  because  those  who  suffered  most  were  most 
in  need  of  consolation.  Perhaps  it  would  be  still  more  satisfactory  to  make 
these  words  explanatory  of  the  i^,  to  him  i.  e.  to  his  mourners.  Whether 
these  were  but  a  part  or  coextensive  with  the  whole,  the  form  of  expression 
then  leaves  undecided.  Luzzatto  gets  rid  of  the  difficulty  by  connecting 
these  words  with  the  next  verse,  '  and  for  his  mourners  I  create'  etc. 
Koppe  throws  not  only  this  verse  and  the  next  but  the  one  following  all  into 
one  sentence,  making  this  the  expression  of  a  wish  and  the  next  a  continua- 
tion of  it.  '  I  saw  his  ways  and  would  have  healed  him,  guided  him,  consoled 
him  and  his  mourners,  creating  etc. — but  the  wicked  are  like  the  troubled 
sea,'  etc.  This  is  ingenious,  but  too  artificial  and  refined  to  be  good  Hebrew. 
Vitringa  sees  a  special  connexion  between  this  verse  and  the  supplication 
of  the  Austrian  nobles  to  the  Emperor  Ferdinand  in  1541. 

V.  19.  Creating  the  fruit  of  the  lips,  Peace,  peace  to  the  far  off  and 
to  the  near,  saith  Jehovah,  and  I  heal  him.  Luzzatto  adds  to  this  verse  the 
concluding  words  of  v.  18,  'and  for  his  mourners  I  create'  etc.  This, 
besides  the  arbitrary  change  in  the  traditional  arrangement  of  the  text, 
requires  the  participle  X'n'is  to  be  taken  as  an  independent  verb,  which 
although  a  possible  construction,  is  not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity. 
The  usual  construction  connects  S'l'ia  with  Jehovah  as  the  subject  of  the 
foregoing  verse. — The  fruit  or  product  of  the  lips  is  speech,  and  creating  as 
usual  implies  almighty  power  and  a  new  effect.  Rosenmiiller  understands 
the  clause  to  mean  that  nothing  shall  be  uttered  but  the  following  proclama- 
tion, '  Peace,  peace'  etc.  Gesenius  understands  by  the  fruit  of  the  lips  praise 
or  thanksgiving,  as  in  Heb.  13  :  15  and  Hos.  14  :  3.  Hitzig  supposes  it  to 
mean  the  promise  which  Jehovah  had  given  and  would  certainly  fulfil. — By 
the /ar  and  near  Henderson  understands  the  Jews  and  Gentiles.  (Compare 
Acts  10:  36.  Eph.  2:  17.)     Jarchi  and  Knobel  explain  it  to  mean  all  the 


CHAPTER    LVII.  335 

Jews  wherever  scattered  (cli.  43:  5-7.  49:  12).  The  Targum  makes  the 
distinction  an  internal  one, — the  just  who  have  kept  the  hivv,  and  sinners 
who  have  returned  to  it  by  sincere  repentance.  Kimchi  in  like  manner  ' 
understands  the  words  as  abolishing  all  difFerefice  between  the  earlier  and 
later  converts,  an  idea  similar  to  that  embodied  in  our  Saviour's  parable  of 
the  labourers  in  the  vineyard.  Hilzig  directs  attention  to  the  \\  ay  in  which 
the  writer  here  comes  back  to  the  beginning  of  v.  18,  as  an  observable  rhe- 
torical beauty. — The  present  form  is  used  above  in  the  translation  of  the 
last  verb,  because  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  Vav  has  a  conversive  influence 
W'hen  separated  so  far  from  the  futures  of  the  foregoing  verse. 

V.  20.  And  the  ivicked  (are)  like  the  troubled  sea,  for  rest  it  cannot, 
and  its  ivaters  cast  up  mire  and  dirt.     Koppe's  unnatural  construction  of 
this  verse  as  the  apodosis  of  a  sentence  beginning  in  v.  IS  has  already  been 
refuted.     Interpreters  are  commonly  agreed  in  making  it  a  necessary  limita- 
tion of  the  foregoing  promise  to  its  proper  objects.     Hitzig  regards  it  as  a 
mere  introduction  to  the  next  verse.     There  is  a  force  in  the  original  which 
cannot  be  retained  in  a  translation,  arising  from  the  etymological  affinity 
between  the  words  translated  wicked,  troubled,  and  cast  up.     Among  the 
various  epithets  applied  to  sinners,  the  one  here  used  is  that  which  originally 
signifies  their  turbulence  or  restlessness.     (See  Hengstenberg  on  Ps,  2:1.) 
Henderson's  strange  version  of  the  first  clause   (as  for  the  wicked  they  are 
each  tossed  about  like  the  sea  ivhich  cannot  resf^  seems  to  be  founded  upon 
some  mistaken  view  of  the  construction,  and  is  certainly  not  worth  ])urchas- 
ing  by  a  violation  of  the  accents. — Hendewerk's  version  of  the  clause  is 
peculiar  only  in  the  use  of  the  indefinite  expression  a  sea.     Gesenius  in  his 
Lexicon  makes  this  one  of  the  cases  in  which  "'S  retains  its  original  meaninfr 
as  a  relative  pronoun,  like  the  troubled  sea  which  cannot  rest.    The  Enn^lish 
Version  and  some  others  take  it  as  a  particle  of  time  (ivhen  it  cannot  rest). 
All  the  latest   German   writers  follow    Lowth  in  giving  it  its  usual  sense  of 
for,  because.     The  only  objection  to  this  version,  that  it  appears  to  make  the 
sea  itself  the  subject  of  comparison,  Knobel  ingeniously  removes  by  addino-, 
'  any  more  than  you  can.'     The  future  form  -='"'  implies  that  such  will  be  the 
case  hereafter  as  it  has  been  heretofore,  which  is  sufficiently  expressed  by 
the  reference  to  futurity  in  our  verb  can.     The  Vav  conversive  prefixed  to 
the  last  verb  merely  shows  its  dependence  on  the  one  before  it,  as  an  effect 
upon  its  cause,  or  a  consequent  upon  its  antecedent.    Its  waters  cannot  rest, 
and  (so  or  therefore)  they  cast  up  mire  and  mud.     Lowth's  version  of  this 
last  clause  is  more  than  usually  plain  and  vigorous  :  its  ivaters  ivork  up  mire 
and  filth.     The  verb  means  strictly  to  expel  or  drive  out,  and  is  therefore 
happily  descriptive  of  the  natural  process  here  referred  to.     There  seems  to 


336  CHAPTER    LVIII. 

be  allusion  to  this  verse  in  the  y.vi^aza  uyQiu  ^aXaoaiig  of  Jude  v.  13.  Most 
of  the  later  writers  have  repeated  the  fine  parallel  which  Clericus  quotes 
from  Ovid  : 

Cumque  sit  liftiernis  agitatum  fluctibus  acquor, 
Pectora  sunt  ipso  turbiiiiora  mari. 

V.  21.  There  is  no  peace,  saith  my  God,  to  the  wicked.  Gesenius  has 
for  the  wicked,  i.  e.  in  reserve  for  them.  Ewald  follows  Luther  in  exchang- 
ing the  oriental  for  an  occidental  idiom,  the  wicked  have  no  peace,  which 
although  perfectly  correct  in  sense,  is  an  enfeebling  deviation  from  the 
Hebrew  collocation  and  construction.  That  peace  is  here  to  be  taken  in 
its  strict  sense,  and  not  in  that  of  welfare  or  prosperity,  is  clear  from  the 
comparison  in  the  preceding  verse.  Twenty-two  manuscripts  assimilate 
this  verse  to  ch.  48  :  22  by  reading  ni.-rn  for  ''n'^i* .  The  Alexandrian  text 
of  the  Septuagint  combines  both  readings,  KVQiog  6  Oeog.  So  too  Jerome 
has  Dominus  Deus,  which  Grotius  thinks  ought  to  be  read  Dominus  mens, 
not  observing  that  the  form  of  expression  would  still  be  different  from  that 
of  the  original.  It  is  somewhat  surprising  that  the  "  higher  criticism  "  has 
not  detected  in  this  repetition  a  marginal  gloss  or  the  assimilating  hand  of 
some  redactor.  But  even  Hitzig  zealously  contends,  without  an  adversary, 
that  the  verse  is  genuine  both  here  and  in  ch.  48  :  22,  and  that  its  studied 
repetition  proves  the  unity  and  chronological  arrangement  of  the  whole 
book.  The  only  wonder  is  that  in  a  hundred  cases  more  or  less  analogous 
the  same  kind  of  reasoning  is  rejected  as  beneath  refutation.  This  verse, 
according  to  the  theory  of  Riickert,  Hitzig,  and  Havernick,  closes  the  second 
great  division  of  the  Later  Prophecies.  For  the  true  sense  of  the  words 
themselves,  see  above,  on  ch.  48  :  22. 


CHAPTER    LVIII. 

The  rejection  of  Israel  as  a  nation  is  the  just  reward  of  their  unfaithful- 
ness, V.  1.  Their  religious  services  are  hypocritical,  v.  2.  Their  mortifi- 
cations and  austerities  are  nullified  by  accompanying  wickedness,  vs.  3-5. 
They  should  have  been  connected  with  the  opposite  virtues,  vs.  6 — 7.  In 
that  case  they  would  have  continued  to  enjoy  the  divine  favour,  vs.  8 — 9. 
They  are  still  invited  to  make  trial  of  this  course,  with  an  ample  promise  of 
prosperity  and  blessing  to  encourage  them,  vs.  10-14. 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  V  I  I  1 .  337 

V.  1.  Cry  with  the  throat,  spare  not,  like  the  trumpet  raise  thy  voice, 
and  tell  to  my  people  their  transgression  and  to  the  house  of  Jacob  their 
sins.  Although  this  may  be  conveniently  assigned  as  the  beginning  of  the 
third  part,  according  to  the  theory  propounded  in  the  Introduction,  it  is 
really,  as  Knobel  well  observes,  a  direct  continuation  of  the  previous  dis- 
course. Ewald's  suggestion  that  the  latter  may  have  produced  some  effect 
upon  the  people  before  this  was  uttered,  rests  on  a  supposition  which  has 
probably  no  foundation  in  fact.  The  utmost  that  can  be  conceded  is  that 
the  Prophet,  after  a  brief  pause,  recommences  his  discourse  precisely  at  the 
point  where  he  suspended  it. — The  object  of  address  is  the  Prophet  himself, 
as  expressed  in  the  Targum,  and  by  Saadias  (he  said  to  me).  That  he  is 
here  viewed  as  the  representative  of  prophets  or  ministers  in  general,  is  not 
a  natural  or  necessary  inference.  Crying  with  the  throat  or  from  the  lungs 
is  here  opposed  to  a  simple  motion  of  the  lips  and  tongue.  (See  I  Sam. 
1  :  13.)  The  common  version  (cry  aloud)  is  therefore  substantially  correct, 
though  somewhat  vague.  The  Septuagint  in  like  manner  paraphrases  it 
fV  laxi'i-  The  Vulgate  omits  it  altogether.  J.  D.  Michaelis  reads,  as  loud 
as  thou  canst.  The  positive  command  is  enforced  by  the  negative  one, 
spare  not,  as  in  ch.  54  :  2.  The  comparison  with  a  trumpet  is  of 
frequent  occurrence  in  the  Book  of  Revelations.  (See  e.  g,  1  :  10. 
4:1.)  The  loudness  of  the  call  is  intended  to  suggest  the  import- 
ance of  the  subject,  and  perhaps  the  insensibility  of  those  to  be  convinced. 
The  Prophet  here  seems  to  turn  away  from  avowed  apostates  to  hypocriti- 
cal professors  of  the  truth.  The  restriction  of  the  verse  to  Isaiah's  contem- 
poraries by  the  rabbins,  Grotius,  and  Piscator — and  to  the  Jews  of  the 
Babylonish  exile  by  Sanctius  and  the  modern  writers — is  as  perfectly  gratu- 
itous as  its  restriction  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome  to  the  Pharisees  of  Christ's 
time,  and  by  Vitringa  to  the  Protestant  churches  at  the  decline  of  the 
Reformation.  The  points  of  similarity  with  all  or  any  of  these  periods 
arise  from  its  being  a  description  of  what  often  has  occurred  and  will  occur 
again.  It  was  important  that  a  phase  of  human  history  so  real  and  import- 
ant should  form  a  part  of  this  prophetic  picture,  and  accordingly  it  has  not 
been  forgotten. 

V.  2,  And  me  day  (by)  day  they  will  seek,  and  the  knowledge  of  my 
ways  they  will  delight  in  (or  desire),  like  a  nation  which  has  done  right 
and  the  judgment  of  its  God  has  not  forsaken ;  they  will  ask  of  me  right- 
eous judgments,  the  approach  to  God  (or  of  God)  they  will  delight  in  (or 
desire).  The  older  writers  understand  this  as  a  description  of  hypocrisy, 
as  practised  in  a  formal  seeking  (i.  e.  worshipping)  of  God  and  a  professed 
desire  to  know  his  ways  (i.  e.  the  doctrines  and  duties  of  the  true  religion), 
the  external  appearance  of  a  just  and  godly  people,  who  delight  in  nothing 

22 


333  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  V  I  I  I . 

more  than  in  drawing  near  lo  God  (i.  e.  in  worship  and  communion  with 
him).  Cocceius  and  Vitringa,  while  they  differ  on  some  minor  questions, 
e.  g.  whether  seeking  denotes  consultation  or  worship,  or  includes  them  both, 
agree  as  to  the  main  points  of  the  exposition  which  has  just  been  given. 
But  Gesenius  and  all  the  later  German  writers  put  a  very  different  sense 
upon  the  passage.  They  apply  it  not  to  hypocritical  formality,  but  to  a 
discontented  and  incredulous  impatience  of  delay  in  the  fulfilment  of  God's 
promises.  According  to  this  view  of  the  matter,  seeking  God  daily,  means 
importunate  solicitation  :  delight  in  the  knowledge  of  his  ways,  is  eager 
curiosity  to  know  his  providential  plans  and  purposes  ;  the  judgments  of 
righteousness  which  they  demand  are  either  saving  judgments  for  themselves 
or  destroying  judgments  for  their  enemies  ;  the  approach  which  they  desire 
is  not  their  own  approach  to  God,  but  his  approach  to  them  for  their  deli- 
verance ;  and  the  words  like  a  nation  etc.  are  descriptive  not  of  a  simulated 
piety,  but  of  a  self-righteous  belief  that  by  their  outward  services  they  had 
acquired  a  meritorious  claim  to  the  divine  interposition  in  their  favour.  Ii 
is  somewhat  remarkable  that  a  sentence  of  such  length  should  without  vio- 
lence admit  of  two  interpretations  so  entirely  different,  and  the  wonder  is 
enhanced  by  the  fact  that  both  the  senses  may  be  reconciled  with  the  ensuing 
context.  The  only  arguments  which  seem  to  be  decisive  in  favour  of  the 
first,  are  its  superior  simplicity  and  the  greater  readiness  with  which  it  is 
suggested  to  most  readers  by  the  language  of  the  text  itself,  together  with 
the  fact  that  it  precludes  the  necessity  of  limiting  the  words  to  the  Baby- 
lonish exile,  for  which  limitation  there  is  no  ground  either  in  the  text  or 
context.  The  objection  to  the  modern  explanation,  founded  on  the  sense 
which  it  attaches  to  the  verb  ysn  ,  is  met  by  the  analogous  use  of  the  verb 
love  in  Ps.  40  :  17.  70  :  5.  2  Tim.  4  :  8. — Luther  understands  the  last 
clause  as  accusing  them  of  wishing  to  contend  with  God,  and  venturing  to 
charge  him  with  injustice. 

V.  3.  Why  have  we  fasted  and  thou  hast  not  seen  (it),  ajffiicted  our 
soul  (or  ourselves)  and  thou  xvilt  not  know  (it)  1  Behold,  in  the  day  of 
your  fast  ye  will  find  pleasure,  and  all  your  labours  ye  will  exact.  The 
two  interpretations  which  have  been  propounded  of  the  foregoing  verse 
ao-ree  in  making  this  a  particular  exemplification  of  the  people's  self-right- 
eous confidence  in  the  meritorious  efficacy  of  their  outward  services.  The 
first  clause  contains  their  complaint,  and  the  last  the  prophet's  answer. 
This  relation  of  the  clauses  Saadias  points  out  by  prefixing  to  one  the  words 
"  they  say,"  and  to  the  other  "  Prophet,  answer  them."  Cocceius  and 
Vitringa  suppose  fasting  to  be  here  used  in  a  wide  sense  for  the  whole 
routine  of  ceremonial  services.  The  same  end  is  attained  by  adhering  to 
the  strict  sense,  but  supposing  what  is  said  of  this  one  instance  to  be  appli- 


CHAPTERLVIII.  339 

cable  to  the  others.  The  structure  of  the  first  clause  is  like  that  in  ch.  5  :  4. 
50  :  2.  In  our  idiom  the  idea  would  be  naturally  thus  expressed,  Why- 
dost  thou  not  see  when  we  fast,  or  recognise  our  merit  when  we  mortify 
ourselves  before  thee  ?  The  word  ffi?.3  here  may  either  mean  the  appetite, 
or  the  soul  as  distinguished  from  the  body,  or  it  may  supply  the  place  of  ihe 
reflexive  pronoun  self,  which  is  entitled  to  the  preference,  because  the  con- 
text shows  that  their  mortifications  were  not  of  a  spiritual  but  of  a  corporeal 
nature.  The  combination  of  the  preterite  (hast  not  seen)  and  the  future 
(^ivilt  not  knoiv)  includes  all  time.  The  clause  describes  Jehovah  as  indif- 
ferent and  inattentive  to  their  laboured  austerities.  The  reason  given  is 
analogous  to  that  for  the  rejection  of  their  sacrifices  in  ch.  1  :  11-13,  viz. 
the  combination  of  their  formal  service  with  unhallowed  practice.  The 
precise  nature  of  the  alleged  abuse  depends  upon  the  sense  of  the  word 
"sn  .  Gesenius  and  most  later  writers  understand  it  to  mean  business,  as 
in  ch.  44  :  28.  53  :  10,  and  explain  the  whole  clause  as  a  declara- 
tion that  on  days  set  apart  for  fasting  they  were  accustomed  to  pursue 
their  usual  employments,  or  as  Henderson  expresses  it,  to  "  attend  to  busi- 
ness." But  this  explanation  of  the  word,  as  v/e  have  seen  before,  is  per- 
fectly gratuitous.  If  we  take  it  in  its  usual  and  proper  sense,  the  meaning 
of  the  clause  is  that  they  made  their  pretended  self-denial  a  means  or  an 
occasion  of  sinful  gratification,  J.  D.  Michaelis  supposes  the  specific  plea- 
sure meant  to  be  that  afibrded  by  the  admiration  of  their  superior  goodness 
by  the  people.  But  this  is  a  needless  limitation  of  the  language,  which  may 
naturally  be  applied  to  all  kinds  of  enjoyment  inconsistent  with  the  morti- 
fying humiliation  which  is  inseparable  from  right  fasting. — The  remaining 
member  of  the  sentence  has  been  still  more  variously  explained.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate,  it  charges  them  with  specially  oppressing 
their  dependents  {yno-/is(Qiovg  and  subjcctos)  at  such  times.  Luther  agrees 
with  Symmachus  in  supposing  a  particular  allusion  to  the  treatment  of 
debtors.  Gesenius  in  his  Commentary,  Umbreit,  and  De  VVette,  prefer  the 
specific  sense  of  labourers  or  workmen  forced  to  toil  on  fast-days  as  at  other 
times.  Maurer,  Hitzig,  and  Gesenius  in  his  Thesaurus,  coincide  with  the 
English  Version  in  the  sense,  ye  exact  all  your  labours,  i.  e.  all  the  labour 
due  to  you  from  your  dependents.  As  these  substitute  labours  for  labourers 
so  the  Rabbins  debts  for  debtors.  Aben  Ezra  uses  the  expression  mammon, 
which  may  mean  your  gains  or  profits ;  but  siis ,  as  Maurer  well  observes, 
does  not  signify  emolument  in  general,  but  hard-earned  wages,  as  appears 
both  from  etymology  and  usage.  (See  Prov.  5  :  10.  10  :  22.  Ps.  127  :  2.) 
J.  D.  Michaelis  ingeniously  explains  the  clause  as  meaning  that  they 
demanded  of  God  himself  a  reward  for  their  meritorious  services. — On  the 
stated  fasts  of  the  Old  Testament,  see  Jer.  36  :  9.  Zech.  7:3.  8  :  19. — 
According  to  Luzzatto,  n^is  originally  signifies  the  convocation  of  the  people 


340  CH  A  P  T  ER    L  VI  II. 

for  prayer  and  preaching ;  so  that  when  Jezebel  required  a  fast  to  be  pro- 
claimed, Naboth  was  set  on  high  among  the  people,  i.  e.  preached  against 
idolatry,  on  which  pretext  he  was  afterwards  accused  of  having  blasphemed 
God  and  the  king.     (I  Kings  21  :  9-13.) 

V.  4.  Behold,  for  strife  and  contention  ye  will  fast,  and  to  smite  with 
the  fist  of  wickedness  ;  ye  shall  not  (or  ye  vnll  not)  fast  to-day  (so  as)  to 
malce  your  voice  heard  on  high.  Some  understand  this  as  a  further  reason 
why  their  fasts  were  not  acceptable  to  God  ;  others  suppose  the  same  to  be 
continued,  and  refer  what  is  here  said  to  the  maltreatment  of  the  labourers 
or  debtors  mentioned  in  the  verse  preceding.  Gesenius  understands  the  h 
in  the  first  clause  as  expressive  merely  of  an  accompanying  circumstance, 
ye  fast  with  strife  and  quarrel.  But  Maurer  and  the  later  writers,  more 
consistently  with  usage,  understand  it  as  denoting  the  effect,  either  simply 
so  considered,  or  as  the  end  deliberately  aimed  at.  J.  D.  Michaelis  tells  a 
story  of  a  lady  who  was  never  known  to  scold  her  servants  so  severely  as 
on  fast  days,  which  he  says  agrees  well  with  physiological  principles  and 
facts.  Vitringa  applies  this  clause  to  the  doctrinal  divisions  among  Protest- 
ants, and  more  particularly  to  the  controversies  in  the  church  of  Holland  on 
the  subject  of  grace  and  predestination.  To  smite  with  the  fist  of  wicked- 
ness is  a  periphrasis  for  fighting,  no  doubt  borrowed  from  the  provision  of 
the  law  in  Ex.  21  :  18. — Luther  and  other  early  writers  understand  the  last 
clause  as  a  prohibition  of  noisy  quarrels,  to  make  the  voice  heard  on  high 
beino-  taken  as  equivalent  to  letting  it  be  heard  in  the  street  (ch.  42  :  3). 
Vitringa  and  the  later  writers  give  it  a  meaning  altogether  different,  by  taking 
Di"iT3  in  the  sense  of  heaven  (ch.  57  :  15),  and  the  whole  clause  as  a  decla- 
ration that  such  fasting  would  not  have  the  desired  effect  of  gaining  audience 
and  acceptance  for  their  prayers.  (See  Joel  1  :  14.  2  :  12.)  All  the 
modem  writers  make  ci^s  synonymous  with  ai'n  to-day,  as  in  I  Kings  1:31. 
Jarchi's  explanation,  as  the  day  (ought  to  be  kept)  involves  a  harsh  ellipsis 
and  is  contrary  to  usage. — Instead  of  ^h  sr^ui ,  Lowth  reads  ''b  hts  h'S  u:n , 
and  translates  'to  smite  with  the  fist  the  poor  ;  wherefore  fast  ye  unto  me 
in  this  manner  ?'  The  only  authority  for  this  pretended  emendation  is  the 
raneivov  Ivari  fioi  of  the  Septuagint  version,  and  the  strange  idea  that  it 
"  trives  a  much  better  sense  than  the  present  reading  of  the  Hebrew." 

V.  5.  Shall  it  be  like  this,  the  fast  that  I  will  choose,  the  day  of  man's 
humbling  himself?  Is  it  to  hang  his  head  like  a  bulrush  and  make  sack- 
cloth and  ashes  his  bed  ?  Wilt  thou  call  this  a  fast,  and  a  day  of  accept- 
ance (an  acceptable  day)  to  Jehovah  1  The  general  meaning  of  this  verse 
is  clear,  although  its  structure  and  particular  expressions  are  marked  with  a 
strong  idiomatic  peculiarity  which  makes  exact  translation  very  difiicult. 


CHAPTERLVIII.  341 

The  interrogative  form,  as  in  many  other  cases,  implies  strong  negation 
mingled  with  surprise.  Nothing  is  gained  but  something  lost  by  dropping 
the  future  forms  of  the  first  clause.  The  preterite  translation  of  "ir!2i<  (/ 
have  chosen)  is  in  fact  quite  ungrammatical.  No  less  gratuitous  is  the 
explanation  of  this  verb  as  meaning  love  by  Gesenius,  and  approve  by  Hen- 
derson ;  neither  of  which  ideas  is  expressed,  although  both  are  really  implied 
in  the  exact  translation,  choose.  The  second  member  of  the  first  clause  is 
not  part  of  the  contemptuous  description  of  a  mere  external  fast,  but  belongs 
to  the  definition  of  a  true  one,  as  a  time  for  men  to  practise  self-humilia- 
tion. He  does  not  ask  whether  the  fast  which  he  chooses  is  a  day  for  a 
man  to  afflict  himself,  implying  that  it  is  not,  which  would  be  destructive 
of  the  very  essence  of  a  fast  ;  but  he  asks  whether  the  fast  which  he  has 
chosen  as  a  time  for  men  to  humble  and  afflict  themselves  is  such  as  this, 
i.  e.  a  mere  external  self-abasement. — ""-i^  means  to  spread  any  thing  under 
one  for  him  to  lie  upon.  (See  above,  ch.  14  :  11.)  The  effect  of  fasting 
as  an  outward  means  and  tokt^n  of  sincere  humiliation,  may  be  learned  from 
the  case  of  Ahab  (1  Kings  21  :  27-29)  and  the  Ninevites  (Jonah  3  :  5-9). 
The  use  of  sackcloth  and  ashes  in  connexion  with  fasting  is  recorded  in 
Esther  9  :  3.  Even  Gesenius  regards  this  general  description  as  particu- 
larly applicable  to  the  abuse  of  fasting  in  the  Romish  and  the  Oriental 
churches.  The  sense  attached  to  ci"'  by  Luther  (des  Tages)  and  Lowth 
(^for  a  day)  changes  the  meaning  of  the  clause  by  an  arbitrary  violation  of 
the  syntax. 

V.  6.  Is  not  this  the  fast  that  I  will  choose,  to  loosen  bands  ofivicked- 
ness,  to  undo  the  fastenings  of  the  yoke,  and  to  send  away  the  crushed  (or 
broken)  free,  and  every  yoke  ye  shall  break  1  Most  interpreters  suppose  a 
particular  allusion  to  the  detention  of  Hebrew  servants  after  the  seventh 
year,  contrary  to  the  express  provisions  of  the  law  (Ex.  21  :  2.  Lev. 
25:39.  Deut.  15:  12).  Grolius  applies  the  terms  in  a  figurative  sense  to 
judicial  oppression  ;  Cocceius  to  impositions  on  the  conscience  (Matt.  23  :  4. 
Acts  15:  28.  Gal.  5:1);  Vitringa,  still  more  generally,  to  human  domi- 
nation in  the  church  (1  Cor.  7  :  23),  with  special  reference  to  the  arbitrary 
imposition  of  formulas  and  creeds.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  the  terms 
were  so  selected  as  to  be  descriptive  of  oppression  universally  ;  to  make 
which  still  more  evident,  the  Prophet  adds  a  general  command  or  exhorta- 
tion, Ye  shall  break  every  yoke.  The  Targum  explains  ii'^i'2  to  mean 
unjust  decrees  ("'-d-2  ^n  "'-~=),  and  the  Septuagint  applies  it  to  fraudulent 
contracts,  an  idea  which  Gesenius  thinks  was  probably  suggested  to  the 
translator  by  his  know  ledge  of  the  habits  of  the  Alexandrian  Jews.  Hitzig 
agrees  with  Jarchi  in  deriving  the  first  i^a'i«  from  fiaj  and  making  it  synony- 
mous with  tis^  (Ez.  9 :  9),  the  perversion  of  justice.     (For  this  application  of 


342  CH  A  PT  E  R    L  VIII. 

the  verb,  see  above,  ch.  29  :  21.  30:  1 1).  But  although  this  affords  a  more 
perfect  parallelism  with  rr"^.,  it  is  dearly  purchased  by  assuming  that  the 
same  form  T^•Ji'.^  is  iiere  used  in  two  entirely  different  senses.  For  the  use 
ofy^n  in  reference  to  oppression  see  1  Sam.  12:3,  4,  and  compare  Isaiah 
42:  3.  Gesenius  here  repeats  his  unwarrantable  mistranslation  of  x^n  as 
synonymous  with  nsn.  In  this  he  is  followed  by  Hitzig;  but  the  later 
writers  have  the  good  taste  to  prefer  the  strict  translation.  The  change  of 
construction  in  the  last  clause  from  the  Infinitive  to  the  future,  is  so  common 
as  to  be  entitled  to  consideration,  not  as  a  solecism  but  a  Hebrew  idiom. 
There  is  no  need  therefore  of  adopting  the  indirect  and  foreign  construction, 
that  ye  break  every  yoke. — In  reply  to  the  question,  how  the  acts  here  men- 
tioned could  be  described  as  fasting,  J.  D.  Mlchaells  says  that  they  are  all 
to  be  considered  as  involving  acts  of  conscientious  self-denial,  which  he 
illustrates  by  the  case  of  an  American  slaveholder  brought  by  stress  of  con- 
science to  emancipate  his  slaves.  The  principle  is  stated  still  more  clearly 
and  more  generally  by  Augustine,  in  a  passage  which  Gesenius  quotes  in 
illustration  of  the  verse  before  us.  Jejunium  magnum  et  generale  est  abstl- 
nere  ab  Iniquitatibus  et  ilhcitls  voluptatibus  seculi,  quod  est  perfectum  jeju- 
nium. Hendewerk  understands  this  passage  of  Isaiah  as  expressly  con- 
demning and  prohibiting  all  fasts,  but  the  other  Germans  still  maintain  the 
old  opinion  that  it  merely  shows  the  spirit  which  is  necessary  to  a  true  fast, 

V.  7.  Is  it  not  to  break  unto  the  hungry  thy  bread,  and  the  nfUcted, 
the  homeless,  thou  shah  bring  home  :  for  thou  shah  see  one  naked  and 
shah  clothe  him,  and  from  thine  own  Jlesh  thou  shalt  not  hide  thyself. 
The  change  of  construction  to  the  future  in  the  first  clause  is  precisely  the 
same  as  in  the  preceding  verse. — Grotius  explains  the  phrase  to  break 
bread  (meaning  to  distribute)  from  the  oriental  practice  of  baking  bread  in 
thin  flat  cakes. — Lowth's  version  of  the  next  phrase  (^(he  wondering  poor) 
is  now  commonly  regarded  as  substantially  correct.  (Compare  Job  15  :  23.) 
cnnnis  Is  properly  an  abstract,  meaning  ivandering  (from  '^^"'),  here  used  for 
the  concrete  expression  wanderers.  There  is  no  need  of  explaining  it  with 
Henderson  as  an  ellipsis  for  C'^n^n^  ^itdx  men  of  wanderings.  The  essentia! 
idea  is  expressed  in  the  Septuagint  version  (^uarirjovg)  which  Ewald  copies 
(Dachlose),  and  still  more  exactly  in  the  Vulgate  [vagos).  Jarchi  explains 
it  to  mean  moxirning,  by  metathesis  for  C'n'ni'a  a  passive  participle  from 
Ti"; .  Hitzig  derives  it  from  "^yo  to  rebel,  but  gives  it  the  specific  sense  of 
fugitive  rebels.  Thou  shalt  bring  home,  1.  e.  as  Knobel  understands  it,  for 
the  purpose  of  feeding  them  ;  but  this  is  a  gratuitous  restriction. — The 
construction  of  the  second  clause  is  similar  to  that  in  v.  2.  It  is  best  to 
retain  the  form  of  the  original,  not  only  upon  general  grounds,  but  because 
thou  shah  see  the  naked  seems  to  be  a  substantive  command  corresponding 


CHAPTERLVIII.  343 

to  ihoii  shall  not  hide  thyself. — For  the  use  o^  flesh  to  signify  near  kindred, 
see  Gen.  29:  14.  37:  27.  2  Sam.  5:1.  The  Septuagint  paraphrase  is, 
anh  rmv  oixeimv  tov  antQiiarog  gov. — With  the  general  precepts  of  the  verse 
compare  ch.  32:  6.  Job  31  :  16-22.  Ez.  18  :  7.  Prov.  22 :  9.  Ps.  112:  9. 
Matt.  25  :  36.  Rom.  12  :  11.  Heb.  13  :  2.  James  2  :  15,  16;  and  with 
the  last  clause,  Matth.  15  :  5,  6. 

V.  8.  Then  shall  break  forth  as  the  daion  thy  light,  and  thy  healing 
speedily  shall  spring  up ;  then  shall  go  before  thee  thy  righteousness,  and 
the  glory  of  Jehovah  shall  be  thy  rereward  (or  bring  up  thy  rear).  Kimchi 
connects  this  with  the  foregoing  context  by  supplying  as  an  intermediate 
thought,  thou  shalt  no  longer  need  to  fast  or  lie  in  sackcloth  and  ashes.  It 
is  evident,  however,  that  the  writer  has  entirely  lost  sight  of  the  particular 
example  upon  which  he  had  been  dwelling  so  minutely,  and  is  now  entirely 
occupied  with  the  effects  which  would  arise  from  a  conformity  to  God's  will, 
not  in  reference  to  fasting  merely,  but  to  every  other  part  of  duty.  Then, 
i.  e.  when  this  cordial  compliance  shall  have  taken  place.  The  future  form 
is  preferable  here  to  the  conditional  (ivould  break  forth),  not  only  as  more 
obvious  and  exact,  but  as  implying  that  it  will  be  so  in  point  of  fact,  that 
the  effect  will  certainly  take  place,  because  the  previous  condition  will  be 
certainly  complied  with.  The  verb  to  break  forth  (literally,  to  be  cleft), 
elsewhere  applied  to  the  hatching  of  eggs  (ch.  59:5)  and  the  gushing  of 
water  (ch.  35  :  6),  is  here  used  in  reference  to  the  dawn  or  break  of  day,  a 
common  figure  for  relief  succeeding  deep  affliction.  (See  ch.  8 :  22.  47  :  11. 
60:  1.) — ■^^''"N  is  properly  a  bandage,  but  has  here  the  sense  of  healing,  as 
in  Jer.  8:  22.  30:  17.  33:  6.  By  a  mixture  of  metaphors,  which  does 
not  in  the  least  obscure  the  sense,  this  healing  is  here  said  to  sprout  or  ger- 
minate, a  figure  employed  elsewhere  to  denote  the  sudden,  rapid,  and  spon- 
taneous growth  or  rise  of  any  thing.  (See  above,  on  ch,  42  :  9  and  43  :  19.) 
In  the  last  clause  a  third  distinct  figure  is  employed  to  express  the  same 
idea,  viz.  that  of  a  march  like  the  journey  through  the  wilderness,  with  the 
pillar  of  cloud,  as  the  symbol  of  God's  presence,  going  before  and  after. 
(See  above,  on  ch.  52  :  12;  and  compare  Ex.  13  :  21.  14  :  19.) — Thy 
righteousness  shall  go  before  thee  cannot  mean  that  righteousness  shall  be 
exacted  as  a  previous  condition,  which  is  wholly  out  of  keeping  with  the 
figurative  character  of  the  description.  Luther  has  also  marred  it  by  trans- 
lating the  last  verb,  shall  take  thee  to  himself,  overlooking  its  peculiar  mili- 
tary sense,  for  which  see  above  on  ch.  52:  12.  Knobel  Improves  upon 
Gesenlus's  gratuitous  assumption  that  p"!:i  means  salvation,  by  explaining  it 
in  this  case  as  an  abstract  used  for  the  concrete,  and  accordingly  translating 
it   thy  Saviour.      Ail   the   advantages  of  this   interpretation   are   secured 


344  CHAPTERLVIII. 

without  the  slightest  violence  to  usage,  by  supposing  that  Jehovah  here 
assumes  the  conduct  of  his  people,  as  their  righteousness  or  justifier.  (See 
Jer.  23  :  6.  33  :  16  ;  and  compare  Isaiah  54  :  17.)  The  parallel  term  glory 
may  then  be  understood  as  denoting  the  manifested  glory  of  Jehovah,  or 
Jehovah  himself  in  glorious  epiphany  ;  just  as  his  presence  with  his  people 
in  the  wilderness  was  manifested  by  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  of  fire,  which 
sometimes  went  before  them  and  at  other  times  brought  up  their  rear.  (See 
above,  on  ch.  52:  12.)  This  grand  reiteration  of  a  glorious  promise  is 
gratuitously  weakened  and  belittled  by  restricting  it  to  the  return  of  the 
exiled  Jews  from  Babylon  ;  which,  although  one  remarkable  example  of  the 
thing  described,  has  no  more  claim  to  be  regarded  as  the  whole  of  it,  than 
the  deliverance  of  Paul  or  Peter  from  imprisonment  exhausted  Christ's 
engagement  to  be  with  his  servants  always  even  to  the  end  of  the  world. 

V.  9.  Thtn  shalt  thou  call  and  Jehovah  ivill  answer,  thou  shalt  cry 
and  he  ivill  say,  Behold  me  (here  I  am),  if  thou  wilt  put  away  from  the 
midst  of  thee  the  yoke,  the  pointing  of  the  finger,  and  the  speaking  of 
vanity.  The  tx  may  either  be  connected  with  what  goes  before  or  corre- 
spond to  CN  in  the  other  clause,  like  then,  ivhen,  in  English.  That  ex  may 
thus  be  used  as  a  particle  of  time,  will  be  seen  by  comparing  ch.  4  :  4. 
24  :  13.  The  conditional  form  of  the  pron)ise  implies  that  it  was  not  so  with 
them  now,  of  which  indeed  they  are  themselves  represented  as  complaining 
in  v.  3.  The  idea  of  this  verse  might  be  expressed  in  the  occidental  idiom 
by  saying,  when  thou  callest,  Jehovah  will  answer ;  when  thou  criest,  he  will 
say,  Behold  me.  (See  above,  on  ch.  50  :  2.) — The  yoke  is  again  men- 
tioned as  the  symbol  of  oppression.  (See  v.  6.)  De  Wette  needlessly 
resolves  it  into  subjugation  (Unierjochung),  Hendewerk  still  more  boldly 
into  slavery. — The  pointing  of  the  finger  is  a  gesture  of  derision.  Hence 
the  middle  finger  is  called  by  Persius  digitus  infamis  ;  Martial  says,  ridcto 
multum,  and  in  the  same  connexion,  digitum  porrigito  medium;  Plautus, 
in  reference  to  an  object  of  derision,  intende  digitum  in  hunc.  The  Arabs 
have  a  verb  derived  from  ^/t^e?' and  denoting  scornful  ridicule.  The  object 
of  contempt  in  this  case  is  supposed  by  Grotius  to  be  the  pious  ;  by  Hitzig, 
the  Prophet  or  Jehovah  himself;  by  Knobel,  the  unfortunate,  who  are  after- 
wards described  as  objects  of  sympathy. — Words  of  vanity  in  Zech.  10:  2 
mean  falsehood,  which  is  here  retained  by  J.  D.  Michaelis,  while  Dathe 
gives  it  the  specific  sense  of  slander,  and  Paulus  that  of  secret  and  malig- 
nant machination.  Vitringa  understands  it  as  relating  to  censorious  and 
unnecessary  fault-finding;  Kimchi,  Ewald,  and  Gesenius,  to  strife  and  bicker- 
ings. All  these  may  be  included  in  the  general  sense  of  evil  speech  or 
wicked  words.  The  Targum  has,  words  of  oppression,  or  as  Gesenius 
explains  it,  violence. 


CHAPTERLVIII.  345 

V.  10.  And  (if)  thou  wilt  let  out  thy  soul  to  the  hungry,  and  the 
afflicted  soul  wilt  satisfy,  then  shall  thy  light  arise  in  the  darkness,  and  thy 
gloom  as  the  (double  light  or)  7ioon.  For  "j'^rSD  Lowth  reads  "^nb  thy 
bread,  in  which  he  is  supported  by  eight  manuscripts.  The  Septuagint 
version  he  considers  as  combining  the  two  readings.  But  Vitringa  under- 
stands fx  ^'v/Ji^'  as  denoting  the  cordiahty  of  a  cheerful  giver  (2  Cor.  9  :  7. 
Rom.  12  :  8).  Luzzatto,  by  means  of  a  curious  etymological  analogy, 
makes  p'^sn  synonymous  with  the  i<"^2^n  of  Lev.  9  :  12,  13,  18,  and  trans- 
lates the  whole  phrase,  '  if  thou  wilt  present  thy  person.'  Gesenius  takes 
IJSD  in  the  sense  of  appetite  or  hunger,  here  put  for  the  thing  desired  or 
enjoyed  (deinen  Bissen).  Hitzig  and  Ewald,  with  the  same  view  of  the 
writer's  meaning,  retain  the  more  exact  sense  of  desire  in  their  translations. 
Hendewerk's  explanation,  'if  thou  wilt  turn  thy  heart  to  the  hungry,'  is 
near  akin  to  Luther's,  '  if  thou  let  the  hungry  find  thy  heart,'  which  seems 
to  rest  upon  the  same  interpretation  of  the  verb  that  has  been  quoted  from 
Luzzatto.  By  a  distressed  soul  Hitzig  here  understands  one  suffering  from 
want  and  craving  sustenance.  (See  ch.  29  :  8.)  The  figure  in  the  last 
clause  is  a  cominon  one  for  happiness  succeeding  sorrow.  (See  Judg.  5  :  3L 
Ps.  112:4.  Job  11:  17.)  Vitringa  asserts  roundly  (aio  rotunde)  that 
this  prophecy  was  not  fulfilled  until  after  the  Reformation,  when  so  many 
German,  French,  Italian,  and  Hungarian  Protestants  were  forced  to  seek 
refuge  in  other  countries.  The  true  sense  of  the  passage  he  has  given 
without  knowing  it,  in  these  words  :  "  Post  tot  beneficia  et  stricturas  lucis 
ecclesiae  inductas,  restat  meridies  quem  expectat." 

V.  11.  And  Jehovah  will  guide  thee  ever,  and  satisfy  thy  soul  in 
drought,  and  thy  bones  shall  he  invigorate,  and  thou  shalt  be  like  a  wa- 
tered garden,  and  like  a  spring  of  water  whose  waters  shall  not  fail.  The 
promise  of  guidance  had  already  been  given  in  ch.  57  :  18.  (Compare  Ps. 
73  :  24,  78  :  14.)  Jerome's  translation  (requiem  tibi  dabit)  derives  the 
verb  from  hjij  ,  not  nns.  Driessen  and  some  others  make  nin-^n^a  mean  with 
clear  or  bright  waters;  but  the  sense  of  glistening,  dazzling,  which  belongs 
to  the  Arabic  root,  is  equally  applicable  to  the  burning  sands  of  a  desert. 
Ewald  translates  it  fever-heat.  The  common  version,  drought,  which 
Lowth  changes  to  severest  drought,  in  order  to  express  the  intensive  mean- 
ing of  the  plural  form,  agrees  well  with  the  verb  to  satisfy,  referring  to 
thirst,  as  v.  10  does  to  hunger.  The  common  version  of  the  next  clause 
(and  make  fat  thy  bones)  is  sanctioned  by  the  Septuagint  and  Kimchi, 
who  appeals  to  the  analogy  of  Prov.  15  :  30.  The  Vulgate  version  (ossa 
liberabit)  seems  both  arbitrary  and  unmeaning.  The  Peshito  and  Saadias 
translate  the  verb  will  strengthen,  which  is  adopted  by  most  modern  writ- 
ers.     Seeker's   emendation  (f|"'^n':  ^f^^^s),  which  Lowth  adopts    (renew 


346  CHAPTERLVIII. 

thy  strength),  derives  some  countenance  not  only  from  the  Targum,  but 
from  the  analogy  of  ch.  40  :  31  and  41:1,  and  is  only  inadmissible  be- 
cause it  is  gratuitous.  Similar  allusions  to  the  bones  as  the  seat  of  strength, 
occur  in  Ps.  51:10  and  Job  21  :  24.  The  figure  in  the  last  clause  is 
the  converse  of  that  in  ch.  1  :  30.  There  is  here  a  climax.  Not  content 
with  the  image  of  a  well-watered  garden,  he  substitutes  that  of  the  stream, 
or  rather  of  the  spring  itself.  The  general  idea  is  a  favourite  with  Isaiah. 
(See  above,  ch.  30  :  25.  33  :  21.  35  :  5,  7.  41  :  17.  43  :  20.  44  :  4. 
48  :  21.  49  :  10.)  On  the  deceiving  of  the  waters,  see  Jer.  15  :  18,  and 
compare  the  analogous  expressions  of  Hosea  with  respect  to  wine,  and  of 
Habakkuk  with  respect  to  oil.  (Hos.  5  :  2.  Hab.  3  :  17.)  Hitzig  and 
Knobel  understand  what  is  here  said  of  heat  and  drought  in  literal  applica- 
tion to  the  journey  of  the  exiles  through  the  wilderness,  while  all  the  ana- 
logous expressions  in  the  context  are  regarded  as  strong  figures.  The  truth 
is,  that  the  exodus  from  Egypt  had  already  made  these  images  familiar  and 
appropriate  to  any  great  deliverance. 

V.  12.  And  they  shall  build  from  thee  the  ruins  of  antiquity  (ov  per- 
petuity), foundations  of  age  and  age  (i.  e.  of  ages)  shalt  thou  raise  up; 
and  it  shall  he  called  to  thee  (or  thou  shalt  be  called)  Repairer  of  the 
breach,  Restorer  of  paths  for  divelling.  Ewald  reads  ^^2  ,  they  shall  be 
built  by  thee;  but  this  passive  form  does  not  occur  elsewhere,  and  is  here 
sustained  by  no  external  evidence.  Kimchi  understands  ^33  as  referring 
not  to  persons,  but  effects  (opera),  which  is  very  unnatural.  Hitzig  retains 
the  old  interpretation  of  the  clause  as  referring  to  children  or  descendants  ; 
and  the  latter  writer  gives  it  a  specific  application  to  the  younger  race  of 
exiles,  whom  he  supposes  to  be  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  in  these  Later  Pro- 
phecies. Gesenius  denies  the  reference  to  children,  and  explains  r^'q  as 
meaning  those  belonging  to  thee,  or,  as  he  paraphrases  it,  thy  people.  The 
simplest  supposition  is  that  of  some  rabbinical  writers,  who  supply  as  the 
subject  of  the  verb  its  correlative  noun,  builders.  But  as  "s^  properly 
means y/o;«  thee,  it  denotes  something  more  than  mere  connexion,  and,  un- 
less forbidden  by  something  in  the  context,  must  be  taken  to  signify  a  going 
forth  from  Israel  into  other  lands.  Thus  understood,  the  clause  agrees  ex- 
actly with  the  work  assigned  to  Israel  in  ch.  42  :  14  and  57  :  11,  viz.  that 
of  reclaiming  the  apostate  nations,  and  building  the  wastes  of  a  desolated 
world.  As  D;ii'  obviously  refers  to  past  time,  this  is  the  only  natural  inter- 
pretation of  the  corresponding  phrase,  ^ii;  "ii'n  ;  although  Luther  and  others 
understand  the  latter  as  referring  to  foundations  which  shall  last  for  ever. 
Gesenius  understands  by  foundations,  buildings  razed  to  their  foundations 
(Ps.  137  :  7)  ;  and  Hitzig  supposes  it  to  have  the  secondary  sense  o(  ruins, 
like  D'l'r'^^JX ,  in  ch.  16  :  7.     The    sense    will  then  be,  if  referred  to  past 


CHAPTERLVIII.  347 

time,  foundations  which  have  lain  bare,  or  buildings  whose  foundations  have 
lain  bare,  for  ages.  For  the  metaphor,  compare  Am.  9  :  11  ;  for  that  of  a 
highway,  ch.  19  :  23.  35  :  8  ;  and  for  that  of  the  breach,  Ez.  13  :  5.  22  :  30. 
The  addition  of  the  last  phrase,  nn'^jb  ,  has  perplexed  interpreters.  Cocceius 
understands  it  to  mean  that  the  paths  themselves  shall  be  inhabited.  Gese- 
nius  arbitrarily  translates  it,  in  the  inhabited  land.  Knobel  no  less  gratui- 
tously gives  to  paths  the  sense  of  beaten  or  frequented  regions.  Jerome 
and  Grotius  make  the  word  a  derivative  from  nsa5  ,  and  translate  it  in 
quietem,  or  ad  qiiiescendum.  The  most  satisfactory  hypotheses  are  those  of 
Hiizig  and  Maurer,  the  former  of  whom  makes  the  phrase  mean  ad  hahitan- 
dum  sc.  terram.,  that  the  land  may  be  inhabited.  The  latter  understands  the 
paths  to  be  described  as  leading  not  to  ruins  and  to  deserts  as  before,  but 
to  inhabited  regions.  Of  these  the  former  seems  entitled  to  the  preference. 
It  will  be  sufficient  to  record  the  fact,  that  Vitringa  finds  in  this  verse  an 
allusion  to  fundamental  doctrines,  canons,  formulas,  etc.  etc. 

V.  13.  If  thou  wilt  turn  aioay  thy  foot  from  the  Sabbath  to  do  thy 
pleasure  on  my  holy  day,  and  wilt  call  the  Sabbath  a  delight,  (^and)  the 
holy  (day)  of  Jehovah  honourable,  and  wilt  honour  it  by  not  doing  thy  own 
ways,  by  not  finding  thy  pleasure  and  talking  talk.  The  version  of  Hen- 
derson and  others,  turn  away  thy  foot  on  the  Sabbath,  is  inconsistent  with 
the  form  of  the  original,  as  well  as  with  the  figure,  which  is  that  of  some- 
thing trodden  down  and  trampled,  or  at  least  encroached  upon.  Most 
interpreters  agree  with  Kimchi  in  supplying  '"o  before  mb? ,  a  combination 
which  is  actually  found  in  one  manuscript.  Hitzig  supposes  that  the  gram- 
matical effect  of  the  first  '"a  extends  to  this  infinitive.  Maurer  supplies 
nothing,  and  translates  ut  agos.  The  modern  version  of  ytn  (business)  is 
much  less  natural,  even  in  this  connexion,  than  the  old  one,  thy  pleasure, 
especially  as  paraphrased  by  Luther,  ivhat  thou  ivilt  (was  dir  gefdllt) .  Hit- 
zig observes  a  climax  in  the  requisitions  of  this  clause,  not  unlike  that  in 
Prov.  2  :  2-4.  The  mere  outward  observance  was  of  no  avail,  unless  the 
institution  were  regarded  with  reverence,  as  of  God  ;  nay  more,  with  compla- 
cency, as  in  itself  delightful.  To  call  it  a  delight,  is  to  acknowledge  it  as  such. 
The  h  before  "iii^f?  appears  to  interrupt  the  construction,  which  has  led  some 
interpreters  to  disregard  it  altogether,  and  others  to  take  laiip  as  a  verb,  or  an 
adjective  agreeing  with  Jehovah — honoured  in  order  to  sanctify  (or  glorify) 
Jehovah — honoured  by  the  sanctification  of  Jehovah — honoured  for  the  sake 
of  the  Holy  One,  Jehovah.  But  the  simplest  explanation  is  the  one  pro- 
posed by  De  Dieu  and  adopted  by  Vitringa,  which  treats  the  b  before 
psir ,  and  that  before  ^'^'ip ,  as  correlatives,  alike  connecting  the  verb  Nip 
with  its  object.  As  the  construction  of  this  verb  is  foreign  from  our  idiom, 
it  may  be  best  explained  by  a  paraphrase  :    '  If  thou  wilt  give  to  the  Sab- 


348  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  V  I  I  I . 

bath  (rrrs)  the  name  of  a  dehght,  and  to  the  holy  (o'.ip^)  day  or  ordi- 
nance of  Jehovah  that  of  honourable.'  But  mere  acknowledgment  is  not 
enough — it  must  not  only  be  admitted  to  deserve  honour,  but  in  fact  re- 
ceive it.  Hence  he  adds,  and  if  thou  wilt  honour  it  thyself,  hy  not  doing, 
literally,  away  from  doing,  so  as  not  to  do.  (On  this  use  of  •,ia  ,  see  ch.  5  :  6. 
49:  15.)  Here  again,  to  find  one's  pleasure  on  the  Sabbath  is  more  natural 
than  to  find  one's  business.  Doing  thy  own  ways,  although  not  a  usual 
combination,  is  rendered  intelligible  by  the  constant  use  of  way  in  He- 
brew to  denote  a  course  of  conduct.  Speaking  speech  or  talking  talk  is 
by  some  regarded  as  equivalent  to  speaking  vanity,  in  v.  9.  The  Septua- 
gint  adds  fV  op/f;.  The  modern  writers,  for  the  most  part,  are  in  favour  of 
the  explanation,  speaking  mere  words,  idle  talk.  (Compare  Matt.  12  :  36.) 
The  classical  parallels  adduced  by  Clericus,  Gesenius,  and  others,  are  very 
little  to  the  purpose.  As  to  the  importance  here  attached  to  the  Sabbath, 
see  above,  on  ch.  56  :  2. 

V.  14.  Then  shah  thou  be  happy  in  Jehovah,  and  I  will  malie  thee  ride 
upon  the  heights  of  the  earth,  and  1  ivill  make  thee  eat  the  heritage  of 
Jacob  thy  father,  for  Jehovah's  mouth  hath  sjyoken  it.  The  verb  Jsrnn  is 
combined  with  the  divine  name  elsewhere  to  express  both  a  duty  and  a 
privilege.  (Compare  Psalm  37  :  4  with  Job  22  :  26.  27  :  10. — ^nns-in 
does  not  mean  I  will  raise  thee  above  (Jerome),  or  I  will  cause  thee  to  sit 
(Cocceius),  but  I  will  cause  thee  to  ride.  The  whole  phrase  is  descriptive 
not  of  a  mere  return  to  Palestine  the  highest  of  all  lands  (Kimchi),  nor  of 
mere  security  from  enemies  by  being  placed  beyond  their  reach  (Vitringa), 
but  of  conquest  and  triumphant  possession,  as  in  Deut.  32  :  13,  from  which 
the  expression  is  derived  by  all  the  later  writers  who  employ  it.  There  is 
no  sufficient  ground  for  Knobel's  supposition  that  riirs  in  this  phrase  means 
the  fortresses  erected  upon  hills  and  mountains. — To  eat  the  heritage  is  to 
enjoy  it  and  derive  subsistence  from  it.  Kimchi  correctly  says  that  it  is 
called  the  heritage  of  Jacob  as  distinct  from  that  of  Ishmael  and  Esau, 
although  equally  descended  from  the  Father  of  the  Faithful. — The  last 
clause  is  added  to  ensure  the  certainty  of  the  event,  as  resting  not  on  human 
but  divine  authority.     See  ch.  1  :  2. 


CHAPTER    LIX.  349 


CHAPTER    LIX. 

The  fault  of  Israel's  rejection  is  not  in  the  Lord  but  in  themselves,  vs. 
1,  2.  They  are  charged  with  sins  of  violence  and  injustice,  vs.  3,  4. 
The  ruinous  effects  of  these  corruptions  are  described,  vs.  5,  6.  Their 
violence  and  injustice  are  as  fatal  to  themselves  as  to  others,  vs.  7,  8.  The 
moral  condition  of  the  people  is  described  as  one  of  darkness  and  hopeless 
degradation,  vs.  9-15.  In  this  extremity  Jehovah  interposes  to  deliver  the 
true  Israel,  vs.  16,  17.  This  can  only  be  effected  by  the  destruction  of 
the  carnal  Israel,  v.  18.  The  divine  presence  shall  no  longer  be  subjected 
to  local  restrictions,  v.  19.  A  Redeemer  shall  appear  in  Zion  to  save  the 
true  Israel,  v.  20.  The  old  temporary  dispensation  shall  give  place  to  the 
dispensation  of  the  Word  and  Spirit,  which  shall  last  for  ever,  v.  21. 

V.  1 .  Behold,  7iot  shortened  is  Jehovah'' s  hand  from  saving,  and  not 
benumbed  is  his  ear  from  hearing,  i.  e.  so  as  not  to  save,  and  not  to  hear, 
or  too  short  to  save,  too  dull  to  hear.  On  this  use  of  the  preposition,  see 
above  on  ch.  58  :  13,  and  the  references  there  made.  The  Prophet  merely 
pauses,  as  it  were,  for  a  moment,  to  exonerate  his  master  from  all  blame, 
before  continuing  his  accusation  of  the  people.  The  beginning  of  a  chapter 
here  is  simply  a  matter  of  convenience,  as  the  following  context  has  precisely 
the  same  character  with  that  before  it ;  unless  we  assume  with  Lowth  that 
the  Prophet  now  ascends  from  particulars  to  generals,  or  with  J.  D.  Mi- 
chaelis,  that  he  here  descends  to  a  lower  depth  of  wickedness.  The  only 
explanation  of  the  passage  which  allows  it  to  speak  for  itself,  without  gratu- 
itous additions  or  embellishments,  is  that  which  likens  it  to  ch.  42  :  18- 
25.  43  :  22-28,  and  50  :  1,2,  as  a  solemn  exhibition  of  the  truth  that 
the  rejection  of  God's  ancient  people  was  the  fruit  of  their  own  sin,  and  not 
to  be  imputed  either  to  unfaithfulness  on  his  part,  or  to  want  of  strength  or 
wisdom  to  protect  them.  For  the  true  sense  of  the  metaphor  here  used 
see  above,  on  ch.  50  :  2.  Hendewerk  is  under  the  necessity  of  granting 
that  the  Israel  of  this  passage  is  a  moral  i.  e.  an  ideal  person,  correspondino- 
not  to  any  definite  portion  of  the  people  at  any  one  time,  but  to  such  of 
ihem  at  various  times  as  possessed  a  certain  character.  Whatever  may  be 
thought  of  the  necessity  or  grounds  of  this  assumption  in  the  case  before  us, 


350  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  X  . 

he  has  no  ri^ht  to  deny  the  possibility  of  others  like  it,  even  where  he  does 
not  think  them  requisite  liimself.  Hanc  veniam  ^etimusquc  damusque 
vicissim. 

V.  2.  But  your  iniquities  have  hecn  sejjarating  between  you  and  your 
God,  and  your  sins  have  hid  (/t/s)  face  from  you,  so  as  not  to  hear,  ex  -3 
is  the  usual  adversative  after  a  negation,  corresponding  to  the  German  son- 
dern,  which  has  no  distinct  equivalent  in  English.  Ewald's  version,  rather 
(vielinehr),  seems  to  weaken  the  expression  ;  and  Umbreit's  combination  of 
the  two  (^soiidcrn  vielmehr)  is  entirely  gratuitous. — The  present  form  given 
to  the  verb  (^they  separate)  by  Luther  and  retained  even  by  De  Wette,  is 
entirely  inadequate.  The  original  expression  is  intended  to  convey,  in  the 
strongest  manner,  the  idea  both  of  past  time  and  of  continuance  or  custom. 
Ewald  expresses  this  by  introducing  the  word  bislang,  but  Umbreit  better 
by  retaining  the  exact  form  of  the  original  (icareit  scheidend).  Hitzig 
points  out  an  allusion  to  the  ^^'^'^^  'ni  of  Gen.  1  :  6,  which  is  the  moie 
remarkable  because  it  may  be  likewise  traced  in  the  construction  of  the 
preposition  'pa,  both  the  modes  of  employing  it  which  there  occur  being 
here  combined. — The  general  idea  of  this  verse  is  otherwise  expressed  in 
Jer.  5  :  25,  while  in  Lam.  3  :  44  the  same  prophet  reproduces  both  the 
thought  and  the  expression,  with  a  distinct  mention  of  the  intervening 
object  as  a  cloud,  which  may  possibly  have  been  suggested  by  the  language 
of  Isaiah  himself  in  ch.  44  :  22. — Henderson  adopts  the  explanation  of 
■T^ncii  by  Kimchi  and  Aben  Ezra  as  a  causative  (^have  made  him  hide)  ; 
but  this  is  contrary  to  usage. — Seeker  proposes  to  read  ^:s  (my  face),  and 
Lowth  1*^:3  (his  face),  for  which  he  cites  the  authority  of  the  ancient  ver- 
sions ;  but  in  these,  as  in  the  modern  ones,  the  pronoun  is  supplied  by  the 
translator,  in  order  to  remove  an  ellipsis  which  is  certainly  unusual,  though 
not  without  example,  as  appears  from  Job  34  :  29,  where  the  noun  without 
a  suffix  is  combined  with  this  very  verb.  For  an  instance  of  the  same  kind, 
though  not  perfectly  identical,  see  above,  ch.  53  :  3.  The  omission  of  the 
pronoun  is  so  far  from  being  wholly  anomalous  that  Luther  simply  has  the 
face,  in  which  he  is  followed  both  by  Ewald  and  Umbreit. — The  force  of 
the  particle  before  the  last  verb  is  the  same  as  in  ch.  44  :  18  and  49  :  15. 
It  does  not  mean  specifically  that  he  will  not,  much  less  that  he  cannot  hear, 
but,  as  Lowth  translates  it,  that  he  doth  not  hear.  It  is  still  better,  how- 
ever, to  retain  the  infinitive  form  of  the  original  by  rendering  it,  so  as  not 
to  hear, 

V.  3.  For  your  hands  are  defied  with  blood,  and  your  fingers  with 
iniquity ;  your  lips  have  spoken  falsehood,  your  tongue  will  utter  wicked- 
ness.    The  Prophet  now,  according  to  a  common  usage  of  the  Scriptures, 


CH  APT  E  R    LIX.  351 

classifies  ilie   prevalent  iniquities  as  sins  of  the  bands,  the  mouth,  the  feet, 
as  if  to   intimate    that   every   member  of  the    social    body   was    affected. 
On  the   staining  of   the   hands    with    blood,    see  the   Earlier   Prophecies, 
p.    12.      Here   again  we  have  a  marked  and  apparently  unstudied   simi- 
larity of  thought  and  language  to  the  genuine  Isaiah.      The  form  ^n:?  , 
which  occurs  only  here  and  in  Lam.  4  :  14,  is  explained   by  Kimchi  as  a 
mixture  of  the  JNiphal  and  Pual,  by  Gesenius  as  a  kind  of  double  passive. 
The  use  of  this  form,  instead  of  the  Pual,  which  is  found  only  in  the  latest 
books,  is  rather  symptomatic  of  an  earlier  writer.     The  sense  here  put  upon 
^xa ,  and  in  a  few  other  places,  seems  so  wholly  unconnected  w  ith  its  usual 
and  proper  meaning,  as  to  give  some   countenance  to  Henderson's   idea, 
which  might  otherwise  seem  fanciful,  that  it  is  a  denominative  from  bxJi  the 
avenger  of  blood. — Vitringa  infers  from  v.  7,  that  the  blood  here  meant  is 
specifically  that  of  the  innocent  or  those  unjustly  put  to  death. — According 
to  Grotius,  the  iniquity  which  stained  their  fingers  was  that  of  robbery  and 
theft.     It  is  far  more  natural,  however,  to  consider  hands  and  fingers  as 
equivalent  expressions,  or  at  the  utmost  as  expressing  different  degrees  of 
the  same  thing.     Thus  Umbreit  represents  it  as  characteristic  of  the  Old 
Testament  severity  in  reprehending  sin,  that  the  Prophet,  not  content  with 
staining  the  hands,  extends  his  description  to  the  very   fingers.     This  is 
certainly  ingenious,  but  perhaps  too  artificial  to  have  been  intended  by  the 
writer. — The  restriction  of  the  falsehood  here  charged  to  judicial  fraud  or 
misrepresentation,  is  unnecessary. — The  preterite  and  future  forms  describe 
the  evil  as  habitual,  and  ought  to  be  retained  in  the  translation,  were  it  only 
for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  the  characteristic  form  of  the  original. — The 
last  verb  is  explained  by  Vitringa  as  expressive  of  deliberate  promulgation 
(^meditate  prof ert),  and  by  Luther  of  invention  (dichtet).     J.  D.  Michaelis 
attenuates  its  sense  to  that  of  simple  speech,  while  Hitzig  coincides  with  the 
English  Version   (muttered).     As  the  word,  though  applied  to  vocal  utter- 
ance, is  not  confined  to  articulate  speech,  the  nearest  equivalent  perhaps  is 
uUer,  as  conveying  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  original. —  Vitringa  applies 
this  verse  likewise  to  the  scandals  of  the  reformed  church,  and  especially 
to  those  arising  from  its  coalescence  with  the  state,  observing  that  the  inter- 
preter is  not  bound  to  verify  the  truth  of  the  description,  as  we  know  not 
what  is  yet  to  happen.     This  would  be  rational  enough  where  the  prophecy 
itself  contained  explicit  indications  of  a  specific  subject ;  but  where  this  is 
to  be  made  out  by  comparison  with  histoiy,  a  reference  to  future  possibilities 
is  laughable. — The  wider  meaning  of  the  whole  description  is  evident  from 
Paul's   combining    parts  of  it  with    phrases   drawn   from   several   Psalms 
remarkably  resembling  it,   in   proof  of  the    depravity   of  human   nature. 
(Rom.  3  :  15-17.) 


35-3  CHAPTER    LIX. 

V.  4.  There  is  none  calling  icith  justice,  and  there  is  none  contending 
ivith  truth ;  they  trust  in  vanity  and  speak  falsehood,  conceive  mischief  and 
bring  forth  iniquity.  The  phrase  p^-^^  sn'p  has  been  variously  understood. 
The  Septuagint  makes  it  mean  simply  speaking  just  things  (ov8t]g  lain 
dr/.aia)  which  would  hardly  have  been  so  expressed  in  Hebrew.  The 
Chaldce  paraphrase,  praying  in  truth  (i.  e.  sincerely),  seems  to  be  founded 
on  the  frequent  description  of  worship,  as  calling  on  the  name  of  God. 
Jerome's  version,  cjui  invocet  justitiam,  is  followed  in  the  English  Bible, 
calleth  for  justice,  i.  e.  as  Clericus  explains  it,  there  is  no  one  who  is  will- 
inn^  to  commit  his  cause  to  such  unrighteous  judges.  Hensler  and  Doderlein 
apply  it  to  judicial  decrees  and  decisions,  which  is  wholly  at  variance  with 
the  usance  of  the  verb.  Kimchi  understands  it  of  one  person  calling  to 
another  for  the  purpose  of  reproving  him  ;  but  then  the  essential  idea  is  the 
very  one  which  happens  not  to  be  expressed.  Gesenius  and  Maurer  fol- 
low Rosenmiiller  in  attaching  to  xip  the  forensic  sense  of  >t«J.m  f<v  Smjv  and 
voco  in  jus  :  '  No  one  summons  another,  i.  e.  sues  him,  justly.'  In  proof  of 
such  a  Hebrew  usage  Knobel  cites  Job  5:1.  13  :  2-2  ;  which  are  at  best 
very  doubtful.  The  same  sense  seems  to  be  designed  by  Lowth  (^preferreth 
his  suit).  It  would  be  still  more  difficult  to  justify  the  sense  of  speaking 
for  or  advocating,  here  assumed  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Henderson.  In 
this  uncertainty,  some  of  the  latest  writers  have  gone  back  to  Luther's 
sense  o^  preaching,  which  is  easily  deducible  from  that  of  calling  publicly, 
proclaiming.  According  to  Hitzig  this  is  the  proper  Hebrew  term  for  pub- 
lic speaking,  such  as  that  in  the  synagogues,  which  was  free  to  all.  (See 
Luke  4  :  16.  Acts  13  :  15.)  Luther  makes  righteousness  the  subject  of 
the  preaching,  Ewald  and  Umbreit  a  description  of  its  quality  (^aright  or 
justly).  The  only  argument  against  this  explanation,  and  in  favour  of  a 
more  forensic  or  judicial  one,  is  that  afforded  by  the  parallel  expression, 
nj^^xs  L:sr3 .  Kimchi  makes  the  verb  a  simple  passive,  meaning  to  be  tried 
or  judged — '  no  one  is  fairly  tried.'  Luther  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  reverse  this 
explanation  and  apply  the  clause  to  unjust  judges.  Most  writers  make  the 
verb  reciprocal  (as  in  ch.  43  :  26.  Prov.  29  :  9.  Ez.  17  :  20),  and  apply 
it  either  to  forensic  litigation,  or  to  controversy  and  contention  for  the  truth. 
In  either  case  <^5^^?<  must  mean  bona  fides,  and  not  truth  as  the  subject  or 
occasion  of  dispute,  which  is  not  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word.  (See 
Hengstenberg  on  Ps.  33  :  4.)  The  infinitive  construction  of  the  next  clause 
cannot  be  retained  in  English.  The  nearest  equivalent  is  that  adopted  in 
the  common  version.  Lowth's  substitution  of  the  participle  (trusting,  speak- 
ing, etc.)  is  no  better  as  to  form,  and  really  obscures  the  sense  or  at  least 
the  true  grammatical  relation  of  the  clauses.  The  construction  is  the  same 
as  in  ch.  5  :  5.  21  :  9.     Vitringa  supposes  an  ellipsis  of  the  preterite,  which 


CH  A  P  T  E  R    LIX.  353 

is  inadmissible,  for  reasons  given  in  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  67. — 'fin  is 
vigorously  rendered  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  nothing  (auf  cin  Nichts).  The 
falsehood  mentioned  in  this  clause  is  understood  by  some  in  the  specific 
sense  of  false  or  unfair  reasoning. — With  the  figure  of  the  last  clause  com- 
pare Job  15  :  35  and  Psahn  7:15.  It  might  here  be  understood  to  denote 
mere  disappointment  or  failure,  as  in  v.  13  below  ;  but  the  analogy  of  ch. 
33  :  11  seems  to  show  that  the  prominent  idea  is  that  of  mischievous  and 
spiteful  machination.  With  the  first  of  these  interpretations  seems  to  be 
connected  the  sense  which  J.  D.  Michaelis  here  attaches  to  "C^ ,  namely, 
that  of  pain  or  suffering. 

V.  5.  Eggs  of  the  basiUslc  they  have  hatched,  and  webs  of  the  spider 
they  will  spin  (or  iveove)  ;  the  (one)  eating  of  their  eggs  shall  die,  and 
the  crushed  (egg)  shall  hatch  out  a  viper.  The  figure  of  the  serpent  is 
substantially  the  same  as  in  ch.  14  :  29.  (Compare  Deut.  32  :  33.)  The 
precise  varieties  intended  are  of  little  exegetical  importance.  The  modern 
writers  generally  follow  Bochart  in  explaining  ""--^^  to  mean  the  basilisk,  a 
serpent  small  in  size  but  of  a  deadly  venom.  For  the  use  of  the  verb  in 
such  connexions,  see  above,  ch.  34  :  15.  The  figure  of  the  spider's  web 
is  added  to  express  the  idea  both  of  burtfulness  and  futility.  (See  Job.  8 :  14.) 
— iT^'iT  for  iTi^T  (like  ri:h  for  n:b  Zech.  5  :  4)  is  the  passive  participle  of  n^7 
to  press,  applied  in  ch.  1  :  4  to  the  curative  compression  of  a  wound.  That 
it  does  not  here  denote  incubation,  as  explained  by  AquiJa  (OuXqj&ev), 
Jerome  (confotum),  and  Jarcbi,  may  be  inferred  from  Job  39  :  15,  where 
the  same  verb  is  applied  to  the  crushing  of  the  eggs  of  the  ostrich  by  the 
foot. — Luther,  Lowth,  J.D.  Michaelis,  and  Gesenius  make  iTi^tn  a  nomina- 
tive absolute,  'if  one  is  crushed  there  creeps  out  a  viper.'     Maurer  and  the 

later  writers  construe  it  directly  with  the  verb,  as  in  the  Eno-h'sh  Bible. 

To  the  objection  that  the  viper  is  viviparous,  Vltringa  answers  that  the 
Prophet  intentionally  uses  a  mixed  metaphor ;  Gesenius,  that  we  cannot  look 
for  accurate  details  of  natural  history  in  such  a  writer.  Neither  seems  to 
have  observed  that  the  exact  correspondence  of  the  Hebrew  word  to 
viper  is  extremely  problematical,  although  Gesenius  himself  defines  it  in 
his  Lexicon,  "  a  viper,  adder,  aiiy  poisonous  serpent"  and  J.  D.  Michaelis 
accordingly  translates  it  by  the  general  term  schlange.  The  same  writer 
looks  upon  the  whole  verse  as  peculiarly  appropriate  to  the  character 
and  condition  of  the  Jews  immediately  before  their  destruction  by  the 
Romans. 

V.  6.  Their  webs  shall  not  become  (or  be  for)  clothing,  and  they  shall 
not  coxier  themselves  with  their  works  ;  their  works  are  works  of  mischief 
(or  iniquity),  and  the  doing  of  violence  is  in  their  hands.     The  first  clause 

23 


354  CHAPTER    L  1  X . 

does  not  seem  to  foim  a  pari  of  what  the  writer  meant  at  first  to  say,  but  is 
a  kind  of  aftertliouylit,  by  which  he  gives  a  new  turn  to  the  sentence,  and 
expresses  an  additional  idea  without  a  change  of  metaphor.  Having  intro- 
duced the  spider's  web,  in  connexion  with  the  serpent's  egg,  as  an  emblem 
of  malignant  and  treacherous  designs,  he  here  repeals  the  first  but  for  another 
purpose,  namely,  to  suggest  the  idea  of  futility  and  worthlessness.  This 
application  may  have  bi;en  suggested  by  the  frequent  reference  to  webs  and 
weaving  as  conducive  to  the  comfort  and  emolument  of  men  ;  bui  spiders' 
webs  can  answer  no  such  purpose.  The  idea  that  it  is  not  fit  or  cannot  be 
applied  to  this  end,  although  not  exclusively  expressed,  is  really  included 
in  the  general  declaration  liiat  they  shall  not  be  so  used. — Gesenius  and 
Ewald  make  the  second  verb  indefinite,  thty  shall  not  (i.  e.  no  one  shall) 
employ  them  for  this  purpose.  J3ul  the  sentence  is  more  pointed  if  we 
understand  it  as  including  a  specific  menace  that  the  authors  of  these  devices 
shall  derive  no  advantage  from  them.  Works  in  the  first  clause  simply 
means  what  they  have  inaile  ;  but  in  the  second,  where  the  metaphor  is 
dropped,  this  version  would  be  inadmissible.  The  common  version  of 
irb  (^act)  and  Lowth's  emendation  of  it  {(Iced),  are  both  defective  in  not 
sui-o-esting  the  idea  of  continued  and  habitual  practice. 

V.  7.    Their  feet  to  evil  loUl  run,  and  they  ivill  hasten  to  shed  innocent 

blood  ;   their  ihoiighis  are  thoughls  of  mischief  {ov  iniquity)  ;   wastiiig  and 

ruin  are  in  their  puihs.     The  first  clause  expresses  not  a  mere  disposition, 

but  an  eager  proclivity  to  wrong.     The  word  translated  thoughts  has  here 

and  elsewhere  the  specific  sense  of  purposes,  connivances,  devices,  which 

lasi  Lowth  employs  as  an  equivalent.     Luther  gives  -i^!:*  here  as  well  as  in 

the  foregoing  verse    the  sense  of  trouble  (Muhe),  in  reference  no  doubt  to 

the  oppressors  themselves.     In  like  manner  J.  D.  Michaelis  explains  ruin  in 

their  paths  as  meaning  that  it  awaits  themselves  ,  but  most  interpreters  take 

both  expressions  in  an  active  sense,  as  meaning  what  they  do  to  others,  not 

what  they  experience  themselves.      Their  paths  are  then  the  paths  in  which 

their  feet  run  to  evil  and   make  haste   to  shed   innocent   blood. — The  two 

nouns  combined  in  the  last  clause  strictly  denote  desolation  and  crushing, 

i.  e.  utter  ruin.     Destruction  and  calamity  (Lowth)  are  as  much  too  vague 

as  destruction  and  wounds  (J.  D.  Michaelis)  ov  force  and  ruins  (Ewald)  are 

too  specific.     Knobel  supposes  the  idea  to  be  that  of  a  country  wasted  by 

invading  enemies.     (Seech.  I  :  4.) — With  this  verse  compare  Prov.  1 :  16, 

and  the  evil  way  of  ch.  55  :  7  above.     Knobel  of  course  applies  it  to  the 

quarrelsome  exiles,  and  gravely  adds  that  nothing  more  can  be  determined 

with  respect  to  them  than  this  that  they  sometimes  did  not  hesitate  to  rob 

and  murder!     The  references  which  he  adds  to  this  extraordinary  statement 

are  ch.  57  :  20.  50:  11,  and  vs.  3  and  15  of  this  chapter. 


CHAPTER    L  I  X .  355 

V.  8.  The  ivnij  of  peace  iheij  have  voi  knoivn,  and  there  is  no  justice 
in  their  paths  ;  their  courses  they  have  rendered  crooked  for  them;  every 
one  icalking  in  them  knows  not  peace.  J.  D-  Michaelis  and  Umbreit  go  to 
opposite  extremes  in  their  interpretation  of  the  first  clause.  The  former 
makes  the  way  of  peace  denote  the  way  to  happiness  ;  the  latter  under- 
stands the  clause  to  mean  that  ihey  refuse  all  overtures  of  reconciliation. 
The  obvious  and  simple  meaning  is,  tliat  their  lives  are  not  pacific  but  con- 
tentious. In  order  to  vary  the  expression,  Lowth  translates  Dn'^ssra  in 
their  tracks,  which  is  retained  by  Henderson.  With  still  more  exact  adhe- 
rence to  the  primary  meaning  of  the  verb,  they  might  have  written  in  (heir 
ruts,  irpr  is  twice  used  in  the  book  of  Proverbs  as  the  opposite  of  upright 
or  sincere.  (Prov.  10  :  9.  28  :  18.)  Ilitzig  gives  the  verb  the  specific 
sense  o(  choosing  crooked  paths,  which  is  not  so  simple  or  exact  as  the 
common  English  version  (they  have  made  them  crooked  paths),  ns  is  a 
neuter  or  indefinite  expression.  There  is  no  need  therefore  of  reading 
either  oraTJ  with  a  single  manuscript,  or  t:i  with  the  ancient  versions, 
between  which  emendations  Lowth  appears  to  hesitate.  Knobel's  infer- 
ence fiom  this  verse  that  some  of  the  less  corrupted  Jews  were  led  astray 
by  wicked  leaders,  is  as  groundless  as  Vitiinga's  specific  application  of  the 
passage  to  the  excesses  of  victorious  parties  in  religious  controversy,  not 
without  evident  allusion  to  the  ecclesiastical  disputes  of  the  Reformed 
Dutch  Church,  to  which  he  very  naturally,  but  by  no  means  very  reasona- 
bly, yields  an  extravagantly  disproportioned  space,  in  determining  the  scope 
of  this  prophetic  vision.  Tlie  erroneous  principle  involved  in  both  interpre- 
tations is  refuted  by  the  comprehensive  sense  wliich  the  apostle  puts  upon 
the  words  in  the  passage  which  has  been  already  cited.     (Rom.  3:  15-17.) 

V.  9.  Therefore  is  judgment  far  from  us,  and  righteousness  ivill  not 
overtake  us;  ive  wait  for  light  and  behold  darkness  ;  for  splendours,  (and) 
in  obscurities  ive  walk.  The  future  form  of  all  the  verbs  in  this  verse  inti- 
mates that  they  expect  this  state  of  things  to  continue.  Knobel  explains 
judgment  as  meaning  the  practical  decision  between  them  and  their  ene- 
mies, which  God  would  make  when  he  delivered  them.  Why  then  may 
not  the  parallel  expression,  righteousness,  be  applied  in  the  same  way, 
without  losing  its  original  and  proper  sense  in  that  o( salvation!  Accordino^ 
to  Hendewerk,  it  here  denotes  the  righteous  compensation  which  the  Jews 
were  to  receive  for  their  excessive  sufferings.  (See  above,  on  ch.  40  :  2.) 
J.  D.  Michaelis  explains  the  expression  overtake  strictly,  as  denoting  that 
they  fled  from  it.  (Compare  ch.  35  :  10.  and  51  :  11.)  Vitringa  applies 
this  verse  to  the  threatened  extinction  of  religion  in  his  own  day  ;  Knobel, 
to  the  delay  in  the  deliverance  from  Babylon,  occasioned  by  Cyrus's  attack 
on  Croesus ! 


356  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  X . 

V.  10.  We  grope  like  ih.c  blind  for  the  «'«//,  like  the  eyeless  ux  grope  ; 
we  stumble  at  noonday  as  in  twilight,  in  thick  darkness  like  the  dead. 
Lowth  is  so  offended  with  the  "  poverty  and  inelegance"'  of  repeating 
n-r'c;53 .  which  he  thinks  "extremely  unworthy  of  the  Prophet,  and  unlike  his 
manner,"  that  he  reads  in  the  second  phce  with  Houbigant,  n;.5r:  we  ivan- 
der,  candidly  adding  that  the  mistake,  although  very  easy  and  obvious,  ''  is 
of  long  standing,  being  prior  to  all  the  ancient  versions."  Whatever  else 
may  be  said  of  "  this  ingenious  correction,"  it  cannot  be  described  as 
of  long  standing  ;  for  no  writer  since  Lowth  appears  to  have  adopted  it. 
To  an  unsophisticated  taste  the  repetition  is  a  beauty,  when  used  sparingly 
and  in  the  proper  place.  The  phrase  n-^2T:exa  has  been  variously  ren- 
dered. Jerome,  Luther,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  and  Ruckeri,  make  the  noun 
mean  darkness  or  dark  places  (in  caliginosis) ;  the  Targum,  Saadias, 
Kirachi,  and  Grotius,  in  the  tomb  ;  which  sense  the  elder  Kimchi  derives 
from  tD^x  to  be  desolate.  Lowth,  Koppe,  Doderlein,  and  Bauer,  in  the 
midst  of  fatness,  abundance,  or  fertility  ;  Gesenius,  Hitzig,  Maurer,  and 
Hendewerk,  in  fat  or  fertile  fields  ;  Aben  Ezra,  RosenmiiUer,  Ewald,  and 
Umbreit,  in  the  midst  of  the  fat  or  healthy,  with  or  without  allusion  to  the 
prosperous  heathen  among  whom  they  were  scattered,  or  by  whom  they 
were  oppressed.  Knobel  has  gone  back  to  the  meaning  darkness,  as  best 
suited  to  the  context,  and  easily  deducible  from  the  sense  of  fatness,  just  as 
we  speak  of  gross  or  thick  darkness.  Vitiinga  dissents  from  the  application 
of  this  verse  by  Cocceius  to  the  deposition  of  Ferdinand  king  of  Bohemia, 
and  the  election  of  Frederick  the  Count  Palatine.  With  this  verse  com- 
pare Deut.  28  :  29  and  Zeph.  I  :  17. 

V.  11.  J^e  grou-l  like  the  bears,  all  of  us,  and  like  the  doves  we  moan 
(loe)  moan;  we  loaii  for  justice  and  there  is  none,  for  salvation  (and)  it 
{s  far  from  us.  The  Latin  poets  also  speak  of  the  voice  of  bears  and  doves 
as  a  o-cmitus  or  groaning.  (See  above,  ch.  38  :  14,  and  Ezek.  7  :  16.) 
Umbreit  supposes  the  two  here  to  represent  the  extremes  of  violent  and 
o-entle  o'rief.  The  same  effect  which  is  produced  in  the  first  clause,  by  the 
use  of  the  phrase  all  of  us,  is  produced  in  the  other  by  the  idiomatic  repe- 
tition of  the  verb.  Here,  as  in  v.  9,  we  may  understand  by  judgment  or 
iustice  that  which  God  does  by  his  providential  dispensations  both  to  his 
people  and  his  enemies. 

V.  12.  For  our  ii'ansgressions  are  multiplied  before  thee,  and  our  sins 
testify  against  us ;  for  our  transgressions  are  with  us,  and  our  iniquities — 
xve  knou)  them.  The  Prophet  here  begins  a  general  confession  in  the  name 
of  God's  people.  For  the  form  of  expression,  compare  Ps.  51:5.  The 
construction  of  the  verb  nnss  with  a  plural  noun  is  explained  by  Tretnel- 


CHAPTER    LIX.  357 

lius  and  Vitringa  as  implying  an  ellipsis  (quodque).  Cocceius  in  like 
manner  supplies  id  ipsum.  The  modern  grammarians,  who  in  general 
are  averse  to  the  gratuitous  assumption  of  ellipses,  seerh  disposed  to 
regard  it  as  an  idiomatic  license  of  construction.  Lowth  translates  >i3Pis , 
cleave  fast  unto  us ;  but  interpreters  generally  prefer  the  sense  expressed 
in  the  English  Version — they  are  with  us,  i.  e.  in  our  sight  or  present  to 
our  memory. 

V.  13.  To  transgress  and  lie  against  Jehovah,  and  to  turn  hack  from 
behind  our  God,  to  speak  oppression  and  departure,  to  conceive  and  utter 
from  the  heart  ivords  of  falsehood.  The  specifications  of  the  general  charge 
are  now  expressed  by  an  unusual  succession  of  infinitives,  not  as  Hitzig 
says  because  the  persons  were  already  known — which  would  require  the 
adoption  of  the  same  form  ia  a  muhitude  of  places  where  it  is  not  found  at 
present — but  because  the  writer  wished  to  concentrate  and  condense  his 
accusation.  This  rhetorical  effect  is  materially  injured  by  the  substitution 
of  the  finite  verb.  Although  by  no  means  equal  in  conciseness  to  the 
Hebrew,  our  infinitive  may  be  employed  as  the  most  exact  translation. 
Gesenius  makes  i'icj  a  future  form,  but  INIaurer  an  infinitive  from  ioj. 
Departure  means  departure  from  the  right  course  or  the  law  (Deut.  19  :  16), 
l.  e.  ti'ansgression  or  iniquity.  Knobel  applies  the  term  specifically  to  idol- 
atry, and  understands  ptii::?  as  implying  that  the  exiles  in  Babylon  oppressed 
each  other ! 

V.  14.  And  judgment  is  thrust  (or  driven)  back,  and  righteousness  afar 
ojf  stands ;  for  truth  has  fallen  in  the  street,  and  uprightness  cannot  enter. 
The  description  is  now  continued  in  the  ordinary  form  by  the  finite  verb. — 
The  word  translated  street  propeily  means  an  open  place  or  square,  espe- 
cially the  space  about  the  gate  of  an  oriental  town  where  courts  were  held 
and  other  public  business  transacted.  (See  Job  29  :  7.  Neh.  8:1.)  The 
present  form  v/liich  seems  to  be  required  by  our  idiom  is  much  less  expres- 
sive than  the  preterite  and  futures  of  the  original.  Those  interpreters  who 
commonly  apply  whatever  is  said  of  tyranny  to  the  oppression  of  the  Jews 
In  exile  are  compelled  in  this  case,  where  the  sin  is  charged  upon  the  Jews 
themselves,  to  resort  to  the  imaginary  fact  of  gross  misgovernment  among 
the  exiles,  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  the  conclusion  that  the  passage  has 
respect  to  a  condition  of  society  like  that  described  in  the  first  chapter. 

V.  15.  Then  truth  was  missed  (i.  e.  found  wanting),  and  whoso  departed 
from  evil  made  himself  a  prey  (or  was  plundered).  Then  Jehovah  saw  and 
it  was  evil  in  his  eyes  that  there  rvas  no  judgment  (or  practical  justice). 
The  Vav  conversive  in  both  clauses  indicates  a  sequence  of  events,  and  may 


35S  CHAPTER    L  I  X . 

be  best  expressed  by  then  in  English.  The  passive  pailiciple  is  here  used 
with  the  substantive  verb,  as  the  active  is  in  v.  2,  to  denote  anterior  habitual 
action.  Ilitzig  unilerstands  the  first  clause  to  mean  that  honesty  (i.  c.  the 
honest  people)  was  betrayed,  in  direct  opposition  to  the  usage  both  of  the 
noun  and  verb  in  Hebrew.  For  the  sense  of  msJJ,  see  above,  on  ch.  34  :  16. 
40  :  26.  Lowih's  version,  utlerhj  lost,  is  substantially  correct,  ihou'^h  per- 
haps too  strong.  Jarchi,  Cocceius,  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  understand  ^b"r,"^'2 
as  .meaning,  ivas  accounted  mad,  wliich  is  also  given  in  the  margin  of  the 
English  Bible,  but  has  no  foundation  either  in  etymology  or  usage.  It  is 
now  commonly  agreed  that  this  verbal  form  is  near  akin  to  the  noun  ^^w' 
spoil  or  plunder,  and  has  here  the  same  sense  as  in  Ps.  76  :  6.  This 
explanation  is  sustained  by  the  authority  of  the  Targum  and  Jerome. 
Kimchi  understands  it  to  describe  the  godly  man  as  snatched  away,  perhaps 
in  allusion  to  ch.  .37  :  1.  Ewald  derives  from  what  he  thinks  the  true  sense 
of  the  root  the  meaning,  he  became  rare  [ivurde  selten). 

V.  16.  An'l  he  saw  that  there  was  no  man,  and  he  stood  aghast  that 
there  was  no  one  interposing ;  and,  his  own  arm  saved  for  him,  and  his  own 
righteousness,  it  upheld  him.  The  re[)et!tion  of  the  words  and  he  saw  con- 
nects this  verse  in  the  closest  manner  with  the  one  before  it.  Rosenmiiller, 
Umbreit,  and  others,  follow  Jarchi  in  supposing  t'"^x  to  be  emphatic  and  to 
signify  a  man  of  the  right  sort,  a  man  equal  to  (he  occasion.  This  explana- 
tion derives  some  colour  from  the  analogy  of  Jer.  5:1;  but  even  there, 
and  still  more  here,  t!)e  strength  of  the  expression  is  increased  rather  than 
diminished  by  taking  this  phrase  in  the  simple  sense  oi nobody.  What  was 
wanting  was  not  merely  a  qualified  man,  biit  any  man  whatever,  to  maintain 
the  cause  of  Israel  and  Jehovah.  A  like  absolute  expression  is  employed 
in  2  Kings  14  :  26,  where  it  is  said  that  Jehovah  saw  the  affliction  of  Israel, 
that  it  was  very  bitter,  and  that  there  was  7io  helper  for  Israel,  not  merely 
no  sufficient  one,  but  none  at  all.  The  desperate  nature  of  the  case  is  then 
described  in  terms  still  stronger  and  only  applicable  to  Jehovah  by  the 
boldest  figure.  The  common  version  (ivondcred),  though  substantially  cor- 
rect, is  too  weak  to  express  the  full  force  of  the  Hebrew  word,  which  strictly 
means  to  be  desolate,  and  is  used  in  reference  to  persons  for  the  purpose  of 
expressing  an  extreme  degree  of  horror  and  astonishment.  (See  Ps.  143:4, 
and  compare  the  colloquial  use  of  desolc  in  French.)  As  applied  to  God, 
the  term  may  be  considered  simply  anthropopathic,  or  as  intended  to  imply 
a  certain  sympathetic  union  with  humanity,  arising  from  the  mode  in  which 
this  great  intervention  was  to  be  accomplished. — ?''?5'?  strictly  denotes  caus- 
ing to  meet  or  come  together,  bringing  into  contact.  Hence  it  is  applied  to 
intercessory  prayer,  and  this  sense  is  expressed  here  by  the  Chaldee  para- 
phrase.   But  the  context,  etymology,  and  usage,  all  combine  to  recommend 


CHAPTER    LIX.  359 

the  wider  sense  of  intervention,  interposition,  botii  in  word  and  deed.  (See 
above,  on  ch.  53  :  12.)  This  sense  is  well  expressed  by  Lowth  {there  was 
none  to  interpose),  except  that  he  gratuitously  substitutes  the  infinitive  for 
the  active  participle,  which  is  more  expressive  as  sujigestinfj  that  tiie  danger 
was  imminent  and  unavoidable  without  the  aid  of  some  one  actually  inter- 
posing to  avert  it.  The  full  force  of  the  last  clause  can  be  given  in  English 
only  by  the  use  of  the  emphatic  form  his  own,  which  is  implied  but  cannot 
be  distinctly  expressed  in  the  original  except  by  a  periphrasis.  To  do  any 
thing  with  one's  own  hand  or  arm,  is  an  expression  frequently  used  else- 
where to  denote  entire  independence  of  all  foreign  aid.  (See  Judges  7  :  2. 
1  Sam.  4:9.  25  :  26.  Ps.  44  :  4.  98  :  1 .) — The  meaning  of  this  clause 
has  been  much  obscured  by  making  ib  the  object  of  the  verb.  The  obvious 
incongruity  of  representing  God  as  saving  or  delivering  himself  has  led  to 
different  evasions.  Some  interpreters  attenuate  the  meaning  of  the  verb 
from  save  to  help,  which  is  the  favourite  expedient  of  the  modern  writers; 
while  the  older  ones  content  themselves  with  making  it  intransitive  and 
absolute,  brought  salvation  (English  Version),  tvrovght  salvation  (Lowth). 
The  only  simple  and  exact  translation  is,  A?'s  arm  saved  for  him,  leaving 
the  object  to  be  gathered  from  the  context,  namely,  Israel  or  his  people. 
The  ib  means  nothing  more  than  that  his  own  arm  did  it  for  him,  without 
reliance  upon  any  other.  This  same  idea  is  expressed  in  the  last  words  of 
the  verse,  where  his  righteousness  sustained  him  means  that  he  relied  or 
depended  upon  it  exclusively.  By  righteousness  in  this  case  we  are  not  to 
understand  a  simple  consciousness  of  doing  right,  nor  the  possession  of  a 
righteous  cause,  nor  a  right  to  do  what  he  did,  all  which  are  modifications 
of  the  same  essential  meaning,  nor  a  zealous  love  of  justice,  which  Vitringa 
deduces  from  the  use  of  the  word  fury  (i.  e.  ardent  zeal)  in  the  parallel  pas- 
sage ch.  63  :  5.  It  is  fir  more  satisfactory  to  give  the  word  its  strict  and 
proper  sense  as  denoting  an  attribute  of  God,  here  joined  with  his  power,  to 
show  that  what  are  commonly  distinguished  as  his  moral  and  his  natural 
perfections  are  alike  pledged  to  this  great  work,  and  constitute  his  only  reli- 
ance for  its  execution. — The  extraordinary  character  of  this  description,  and 
the  very  violence  which  it  seems  to  offer  to  our  ordinary  notions  of  the  divine 
nature,  unavoidably  prepare  the  mind  for  something  higher  than  the  restora- 
tion of  the  .lews  from  exile,  or  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans. 
The  embarrassment  occasioned  by  this  passage  to  the  champions  of  the 
Babylonian  theory  may  be  inferred  from  their  coniplex  and  unnatural  hypo- 
thesis, that  because  the  magistrates  and  elders  of  the  captivity  did  not  repress 
and  punish  the  offences  just  described,  God  would  himself  do  it,  not  by 
continuing  the  exile  as  a  punishment,  but  by  destroying  Babylon,  and  with 
it  the  ungodly  Jews,  while  the  better  portion  should  escape  and  be  restored 
to  their  own  country  !     It  is  a  strange  and   peculiar  idea  of  Ewald's,  that 


360  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  X . 

tlie  Prophet  here  reproaches  Israel  that  no  IMessiah  had  arisen  from  among 
themselves  according  to  the  ancient  promise,  so  that  God  had  as  it  were 
heen  under  the  necessity  of  raising  up  a  foreign  instrument  for  their  deliver- 
ance, namely  Cyrus.  If  all  things  else  were  as  much  in  favour  of  this  wild 
invention  as  they  are  against  it,  a  sufilcient  refutation  would  be  still  aflbrded 
by  the  obvious  unsuitableness  of  the  language  to  express  the  alleged  mean- 
ing. A  reluctant  use  of  foreign  agents  by  Jehovah  might  be  described  as 
any  thing  rather  than  his  own  arm  doing  the  work  for  him.  If  arm  means 
power,  it  was  no  nion^  exerted  in  the  one  case  than  it  would  have  been 
exerted  in  the  other;  if  it  means  instrumentaiiiy,  the  one  employed  was  not 
so  truly  or  emphatically  his  own  arm  as  it  would  have  been  if  raised  up 
from  among  his  own  people. 

V.  17.  And  he  clothed  himself  ivith  righteousness  as  a  coat  of  mail, 
and  a  helmet  of  salvation  on  his  head,  and  he  clothed  himself  with  garments 
of  vengeance  (for)  clothing,  and  put  on,  as  the  cloak  [or  tunic),  jealous ij. 
Here  again  the  verse  is  closely  connected  with  tlie  one  before  it  by  the 
repetition  of  ^j^^i: .  Its  relation  to  the  other  verse  is  not,  however,  that  of 
an  explanation,  as  impHed  in  Hendewerk's  translation  of  the  particle  by  for. 
The  writer  simply  carries  out  in  detail  his  general  declaration  that  Jehovah 
undertook  the  cause  of  Israel  himself,  under  figures  borrowed  from  the  usages 
of  war.  The  older  writers  have  in  vain  perplexed  themselves  with  efforts 
to  determine  why  righteousness  is  called  a  breastplate  or  salvation  a  helmet, 
and  to  reconcile  the  variations  in  Paul's  copies  of  this  picture  (Eph.  6  :  4-17, 
1  Thess.  5  :  8)  widi  the  original.  The  true  principle  of  exegesis  in  such 
cases  is  the  one  laid  down  by  Clericus,  who  may  speak  with  authority 
whenever  the  question  in  dispute  is  a  question  not  of  doctrine  or  experience 
but  of  taste.  Justice,  says  this  accomplished  rhetorician,  might  just  as  well 
have  been  a  sword,  salvation  a  shield,  vengeance  a  javelin  or  spear,  and 
zeal  or  jealousy  a  torch  with  which  to  fire  the  hostile  camp.  Ratio  hahenda 
est  scopi,  non  singularum  vocum.  The  correctness  of  this  j)i-inciple  is 
clear  from  the  general  analogy  of  figurative  language  and  from  the  endless 
license  of  invention  which  would  follow  from  the  adoption  of  the  other 
method,  so  that  in  aiming  at  precision  and  fulness  we  should  unavoidably 
involve  the  sense  of  Scripture  in  incurable  uncertainty.  That  the  figures 
in  this  case  were  intended  to  convey  the  general  idea  of  martial  equipment, 
may  be  gathered  from  a  fact  which  even  Vitringa  has  observed,  that  there 
is  no  reference  whatever  to  offensive  weapons,  an  omission  wholly  unac- 
countable upon  his  own  hypothesis.  There  is  no  ground  for  Rosenmiiller's 
explanation  of  ^'i^'m  as  denoting  the  desire  of  vengeance,  unless  this  be  a 
periphrasis  for  retributive  or  vindicatory  justice.  Equally  groundless  is  the 
explanation  of  nrvr'ji  by  Gesenlus  and  the  later  writers  in  the  sense  of  vie- 


CH  AP  T  E  R    LIX.  361 

lory.  However  appropriate  and  striking  this  idea  may  be  in  so  martial  a 
description,  it  is  not  the  one  expressed  by  the  writer,  who  looks  far  beyond 
mere  victory  to  the  salvation  of  God's  peo[)le  as  the  great  end  to  be  answered 
by  it.  There  is  much  more  plausibility  in  Knobel's  suggestion,  that  the 
first  two  nouns  have  reference  to  Israel,  and  the  last  two  lo  his  enemies; 
the  same  catastrophe  which  was  to  secure  justice  and  salvation  to  the  former 
would  bring  the  zeal  and  vengeance  of  Jehovah  on  the  latter.  This  dis- 
tinction is  no  doubt  correct  so  far  as  the  terms  vengeance  and  salvation  are 
concerned  ;  but  it  cannot  be  so  well  sustained  as  to  the  others,  since  ^^1'-^^ 
signifies  the  righteousness  of  God,  as  the  cause  of  the  catastrophe  in  ques- 
tion, and  nxsp  not  merely  his  zeal  against  his  enemies,  but  his  jealous  regard 
for  his  own  honour  and  the  welfare  of  his  people.  (See  the  usage  of  this 
word  fully  slated  in  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  165.)  Tlie  particular 
expressions  of  the  verse  need  little  explanation.  The  first  piece  of  armour 
specified  is  not  the  breast-plate,  as  the  older  writers  generally  render  it, 
perhaps  in  reference  to  Eph.  6  :  14,  but  the  habergeon  or  coat  of  mail.  The 
first  and  third  terms  denote  parts  of  armour  properly  so  called,  the  second 
and  fourth  the  dress  as  distinguished  from  the  armour.  The  ^"'^''^  is  either 
the  tunic  or  the  military  cloak,  often  mentioned  in  the  classics  as  being  of  a 
purple  colour.  The  same  noun  is  construed  with  the  same  verb  in  1  Sam. 
•28  :  14.  The  meaning  of  the  whole  verse  is,  that  God  equipped  himself 
for  battle,  and  arrayed  his  power,  justice,  and  distinguishing  attachment  to 
his  people,  against  their  persecutors  and  oppressors. — Jubb  proposes  to  omit 
rr::i"-n  as  superfluous,  inelegant,  and  probably  a  gloss  from  the  margin.  But 
even  Lowth,  although  he  quotes  the  proposition,  leaves  the  text  unchanged, 
and  Henderson  is  betrayed  into  the  opposite  extreme  of  pronouncing  the 
word  "  singularly  beautiful." 

V.  18.  According  to  (their)  deeds,  accordinghj  icill  he  repay,  ivrath  to 
his  enemies,  (their)  desert  lo  his  foes,  to  the  isles  (their)  desert  u-ill  he 
repay.  The  essential  meaning  of  this  verse  is  evident  and  undisputed;  but 
the  form  of  expression  in  the  first  clause  is  singular,  if  not  anomalous. 
Some  of  the  latest  writers,  such  as  JNIaurer,  Henderson,  and  Umbreit,  get  rid 
of  the  difficulty  simply  by  denying  its  existence,  which  is  easy  enough  after 
every  method  of  solution  has  been  suggested  by  preceding  writers.  That 
there  is  a  grammatical  difficulty  in  the  clause  is  evident  not  only  from  the 
paraphrastic  forms  adopted  by  the  ancient  versions,  but  also  from  the  atten- 
tion given  to  the  question  by  such  scholars  as  De  Dieu,  Cocceius,  and  Gese- 
nius.  Ewald,  it  is  true,  passes  it  by  in  silence,  as  he  usually  docs  when 
he  has  nothing  to  suggest  but  what  has  been  already  said  by  his  predeces- 
sors. Another  proof  of  the  existence  of  a  difficulty  is,  that  even  those  who 
deny  it  paraphrase  the  text  instead  of  rigidly  translating  it,  and  thus  go 


36-2  CHAPTER    LIX. 

safely  round  the  hard  place  rather  than  triumphantly  through  it.  Tiie  diffi- 
culty is  not  exegetical,  hut  purely  grammatical,  arising  from  the  unexam- 
pled use  of  the  preposition  ^v  without  an  object :  According  to  (heir  deeds 
— according  to — irill  he  repay.  Cocceius  and  Vitringa  give  to  \*J  its  ori- 
ginal value  as  a  noun,  which  very  rarely  occurs  elsewhere  (Hos.  11:7. 
7  :  16),  and  understand  it  here  to  mean  the  height  or  highest  degree  : 
'  According  to  the  height  of  their  deserts,  according  to  the  height,  will  I 
repay.'  Lowth  after  quoting  Vitringa's  opinion,  that  Cocceius  and  himself 
had  together  made  out  the  true  sense,  adds  with  some  humour,  "  I  do  not 
expect  that  any  third  person  will  ever  he  of  that  opinion."  He  little 
imagined  that  his  own  would  never  even  be  seconded.  His  proposition  is 
to  read  bsa  for  brs  in  either  case,  on  the  authority  of  the  Chaldee  para- 
phrase of  this  place  compared  with  that  of  eh.  35  :  4  and  Prov.  22  :  24, 
in  all  which  cases  the  Chaldee  has  i-i^  corresponding  to  the  Hebrew  b?3  , 
lord  or  master.  The  text  thus  amended  Lowth  translates,  He  is  mighty  to 
recompense,  he  that  is  mighty  to  recompense  ivill  requite,  of  which  Hender- 
son observes  that  it  is  drawling  and  paraphraslical  at  best,  and  incorrectly 
rendered  ;  as  it  ought  to  have  been,  He  is  the  Retributor,  the  Retributor 
will  requite.  But  even  granting  Lowth  the  right  to  fix  the  meaning  of  a 
text  manufactured  by  himself,  it  is  evident  that  such  an  emendation  must 
be  critically  worthless,  De  Dieu  and  Roscnmiiller  explain  b:s  when  used  in 
the  sense  o( propter  as  equivalent  to  a  noun  meaning  cause  or  reason  ;  as 
if  he  had  s-^id,  'on  account  of  their  deeds  on  (that)  account,  will  I  repay.' 
But  besides  the  artificial  character  of  this  solution,  it  overlooks  the  fact  that 
although  bs  by  itself  might  simply  indicate  the  cause  or  ground,  the  3  pre- 
fixed denotes  proportion,  as  in  other  cases  where  it  follows  verbs  of  recom- 
pense. (E.  g.  Ps.  18  :  21.  62:  13.  Jer.  50:  39.)  The  latest  writers  seem 
to  have  come  back  to  the  simple  and  obvious  supposition  of  the  oldest 
writers,  such  as  Jerome  and  the  rabbins,  that  it  is  a  case  of  anomalous 
ellipsis,  the  object  of  the  preposition  being  not  expressed,  but  mentally 
repeated  from  the  foregoing  clause  :  According  to  their  deeds,  according  to 
(Mew),  he  will  repay.  In  the  mere  repetition  there  is  nothing  singular,  but 
rather  something  characteristic  of  the  Prophet.  (See  above,  ch.  52:6.) 
Maurer  and  several  later  writers  choose,  however,  to  regard  it  not  as  a  mere 
repetition  of  the  same  words  in  the  same  sense,  but  as  an  instance  of  the 
idiomatic  use  of  3 — 3  ,  as  equivalent  to  our  as — so.  The  sense  will  then  be. 
'  as  according  to  their  deeds,  so  according  to  (their  deeds)  will  he  repay.' 
But  this  construction  would  create  a  difficulty,  even  if  these  writers  were 
correct  in  denying  its  existence  there  already.  All  that  need  be  added  is, 
that  the  English  Version  happily  approaches  to  a  perfect  reproduction  of  the 
Hebrew  expression  by  employing  the  cognate  terms  according  and  accord- 
ingly, which  has  the  advantage  of  retaining  essentially  the  same  term,  and 


CHAPTER    LIX.  363 

yet  varying  it  so  as  to  avoid  a  grammatical  anomaly  by  which  it  might 
have  been  rendered  unintelligible. — ^^-?  ,  according  to  the  modern  lexico- 
graphers, is  not  directly  recompense,  but  conduct  either  good  or  bad,  and 
as  such  worthy  of  reward  or  punishment.  For  Hengstenberg's  peculiar 
explanation  of  the  verb  and  its  derivatives,  see  his  Conimentary  on  the 
Psalms,  I.  p.  147,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  46.  The  feminine  plural 
here  used  in  the  first  clause,  corresponds  to  the  singular  in  2  Sam.  19  :  37. 
— The  last  clause,  relating  to  the  islands,  J.  D.  Michaelis  in  his  usual  osten- 
tatious manner,  declares  hiinself  incompetent  to  understand,  and,  as  he  says 
himself  of  Kennicott  elsewhere,  seems  disposed  to  wonder  that  any  body 
else  should  be  so  bold  as  to  understand  it  better  than  himself.  On  the 
whole  he  is  inclined  to  regard  it  as  a  promise  that  the  true  religion  should 
be  spread  throughout  Europe.  The  modern  writers  who  restrict  the  passage 
to  the  Babylonian  exile,  are  again  embarrassed  by  the  writer's  losing  sight 
of  the  wicked  Jews  whom  he  had  been  describing,  and,  as  J.  D.  Michaelis 
says,  threatening  to  visit  their  offences  on  the  Gentiles.  Knobel  easily  gets 
over  this  obstruction  by  observing  that,  although  the  wicked  Jews  were  to 
be  iniplicated  in  the  ruin  of  the  Babylonians,  yet  as  these  were  the  direct 
object  of  attack  to  Cyrus,  they  alone  are  mentioned.  How  far  this  will  make 
it  appear  natural  to  ?ay,  '  because  ye  are  wicked,  I  will  })unish  the  Gentiles,' 
let  the  reader  judge.  There  is  also  something  very  artificial  in  Henderson's 
distinction  between  the  enemies  and  adversaries  of  this  verse,  as  meaning 
the  wicked  Jews  destroyed  or  scattered  by  the  Romans,  and  the  isles,  as 
meaning  the  Romans  themselves,  who  were  to  be  overthrown  by  the  barba- 
rians. The  objection  to  such  exegetical  refinements  is  not  that  they  are 
in  themselves  absurd  or  incredible,  but  simply  that  a  thousand  others  might 
be  invented  not  an  atom  more  so.  The  only  satisfactory  solution  is  the 
one  afforded  by  the  hypothesis  that  the  salvation  here  intended  is  salvation 
in  the  highest  sense  from  sin  and  all  its  consequences,  and  that  by  Israel 
and  the  isles  (or  Gentiles)  we  are  to  understand  the  church  or  people  of 
God,  and  the  world  considered  as  its  enemies  and  his. 

V.  19.  And  they  shall  fear  from  the  west  the  name  of  Jehovah,  and 
from  the  rising  of  the  sun  his  glory  ;  for  it  shall  come  like  a  straitened 
stream,  the  spirit  of  Jehovah  raising  a  banner  in  it.  Luther  and  Ewald 
mark  the  dependence  of  this  verse  upon  the  one  before  it  by  translating  the 
1  so  that ;  but  there  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  departing  from  the 
simplicity  of  the  original  construction.  The  name  and  glory  of  Jehovah 
are  here  not  only  parallels  but  synonymes,  as  we  learn  from  other  places 
where  the  two  terms  are  jointly  or  severally  used  to  signify  the  manifested 
excellence  or  glorious  presence  of  Jehovah.  (See  above,  ch.  30  :  27.  35  :  2. 
40  :  5.  42  :  11.)      As  in  these  and  other  places   (e.  g.  ch.  8  :  9.   18  :  3. 


364  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  I  X . 

33  :  13),  the  remotest  nations  or  ends  of  the  earth,  here  represented  by  the 
east  and  west  (eh.  43  :  5.  45  :  (3),  are  said  to  see  this  name  or  glory,  Kno- 
bcl  aecordin^ly  translates  the  first  verb  thei/  shall  sec.  But  although  this 
affords  a  good  sense  and  is  justified  by  usage,  it  effects  no  such  improvement 
in  the  meaning  of  the  passage  as  would  compensate  for  the  violation  of  the 
inasorelic  pointing,  confirmed  by  the  authority  of  all  the  ancient  versions 
Let  it  also  be  observed  that  the  seeing  is  implied  or  presupposed  in  the 
fearing,  and  that  the  mention  of  this  last  effect  agrees  best  with  the  mean- 
ing of  the  last  clause,  which  on  any  exegetical  hypothesis  suggests  the 
thought  of  conflict  and  coercion. — Gesenius  gratuitously  changes /rom  to  i/f, 
as  if  the  apparent  necessity  of  that  sense  in  a  few  doubtful  cases  could 
justify  its  substitution  for  the  proper  one  in  cases  like  the  present,  where  it 
not  only  yields  an  intelligible  sense  but  suggests  an  idea  which  must  other- 
wise be  lost,  viz.  that  of  convergence  from  these  distant  points  as  to  a  common 
centre.  There  is  the  same  objection  to  the  sense  which  Lowth  and  Hen- 
derson attach  to  )^  ,  viz.  that  of  belonging  to  (they  from  the  west,  those  of 
the  ivest),  besides  the  dubious  grammatical  correctness  of  regarding  as  the 
subject  of  the  verb  what  appears  to  be  dependent  on  it  as  a  qualifying 
phrase.  There  is  something  pleasing,  if  no  more,  in  the  suggestion  of 
Vitringa,  that  the  usual  order  of  the  east  and  west  (ch.  43  :  5.  Mai.  1:11) 
is  here  reversed,  as  if  to  intimate  that  the  diffusion  of  the  truth  shall  one  day 
take  a  new  direction,  an  idea  which  Henderson  applies  specifically  to  the 
Christian  missions  of  Great  Britain  and  America,  not  only  to  new  countries 
but  to  Asia,  the  cradle  of  the  gospel,  of  the  law,  and  of  the  human  race. — 
The  last  clause  of  this  verse  has  been  a  famous  subject  of  dispute  among 
interpreters,  who  differ  more  or  less  in  reference  to  every  word,  as  well  as 
to  the  general  meaning  of  the  whole.  The  least  important  question  has 
respect  to  the  ''S  at  the  beginning  of  the  clause;  for  whether  this  be  ren- 
dered when  or  for,  the  sense  remains  essentially  the  same,  because  the  one 
implies  the  other.  The  only  weighty  reasons  for  preferring  the  latter,  are 
first  its  natural  priority  as  being  the  usual  and  proper  sense,  and  then  the 
simi)licity  of  structure  which  results  from  it  as  being  more  accordant  with 
the  genius  and  usage  of  the  language.  As  to  the  next  word  (^3^)  the  only 
question  is  in  relation  to  its  subject  or  nominative,  some  connecting  it  with 
nai7ie  or  glory  in  the  other  clause,  some  with  Jehovah,  some  with  is  con- 
sidered as  a  noun.  Of  those  who  thus  explain  "^Ji  ,  some  suppose  it  to  mean 
anguish  or  distress  as  in  ch.  63  :  8,  others  an  enemy  as  in  v.  18  above.  Of 
those  who  consider  it  an  adjective,  one  understands  it  to  mean  hostile,  but 
the  great  majority  narrow  or  compressed.  The  questions  as  to  nn  are 
whether  it  means  breath  or  spirit,  and  whether  it  is  a  poetical  description  of 
the  wind,  or  a  personal  designation  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  only  doubt  in 
reference  to  t^J-T?  is  whether  it  is  idiomatically  used  to  qualify  the  word 


CHAPTER    LIX.  365 

before  it  (as  a  strong  wind),  or  employed  more  strictly  as  a  divine  name. 
But  the  great  theme  of  controversy  is  tlie  next  word  5^^-?'  \vliieh  some 
derive  from  Cii;,  and  some  from  coj  ;  some  regard  as  a  jiarticiple,  others  as  a 
preterite  ;  some  understand  as  meaning  to  set  up  a  banner,  others  to  put  to 
flight,  to  drive  along,  or  scatter.  Lastly  12  is  by  some  construed  directly 
with  the  verb  as  its  object  (drive  it,  scatter  it,  etc.),  while  by  others  it  is 
separately  understood  as  meaning  either  in  it  or  against  it.  From  the  com- 
bination of  these  various  senses  have  resulted  several  distinct  interpretations 
of  the  whole  clause,  two  of  which  deserve  to  be  particularly  mentioned,  as 
the  two  between  which  most  writers  have  been  and  are  still  divided.  The 
first  of  these  is  the  interpretation  found,  as  to  its  essence,  in  several  of  the 
ancient  versions,  and  especially  the  Vulgate,  cum  venerit  quasi  flavins  vio- 
lentus  quern  Spiritus  Domini  cogit.  This  is  substantially  retained  by  Luther 
and  by  Lowth  (when  he  shall  come  like  a  river  straitened  in  his  course, 
which  a  strong  wind  driveth  along).  It  is  also  given  by  most  of  the  recent 
German  writers,  with  trivial  variations, — Gesenius  reading  ivhen,  F.\\'a\d  for. 
and  the  like.  According  to  this  view  of  the  matter,  nlni  nn  is  either  a 
Hebrew  idiom  for  a  strong  wind,  or  a  poetical  description  of  the  wind  in 
general  as  the  breath  of  God.  The  former  explanation,  although  Lowth 
prefers  it,  is  aesthetically  far  below  the  other,  which  the  later  writers  com- 
monly adopt.  It  will  also  be  observed  that  this  interpretation  makes  fioob 
the  causative  of  013  to  jly,  and  takes  "i:s  as  an  adjective,  and  in  its  primary 
etymological  sense  of  narrow  or  compressed  (Num.  22  :  26),  the  idea  being 
that  of  a  stream  confiaed  in  a  narrow  channel  and  flowing  violently  through 
it.  The  other  principal  interpretation  of  the  clause  gives  "'S  the  sense  of 
ivhen,  "S  that  of  enemy,  construes  the  latter  with  the  verb  to  come,  derives 
riDOb  from  05  a  banner,  and  explains  the  whole  to  mean  that  when  the  enemy 
shall  come  in  like  a  flood,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  shall  lift  up  a  standard 
against  him.  This  is  the  version  of  the  English  and  Dutch  Bibles,  of 
V^itringa,  Alting,  Henderson,  and  others.  Between  these  two  main  inter- 
pretations there  are  others  too  numerous  to  be  recited,  which  agree  essen- 
tially with  one  but  in  some  minor  points  coincide  with  the  other  or  dissent 
from  both.  Thus  Jarchi  gives  to  noDj  the  sense  of  consuming,  which  he 
thinks  it  has  in  ch.  10  :  18,  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  that  of  drying  up,  which 
he  founds  upon  an  Arabic  analogy.  Aben  Ezra  and  Hitzig,  though  they 
construe  ^x  with  the  preceding  verb,  make  it  a  substantive  signifying  pres- 
sure or  distress.  Maurer  agrees  with  the  second  exposition  of  the  clause  in 
all  points,  except  that  he  explains  «^ooa  in  the  sense  of  dispelling,  and  applies 
it  to  the  stream  itself.  The  objections  to  the  first  (and  now  prevailing) 
exposition,  as  stated  by  Rosenmiiller  and  Maurer,  are,  its  needless  violation 
of  the  masoretic  accents,  which  forbid  the  intimate  conjunction  of  irj?  and  is 


.3G6  CHAPTER    L  1  X  . 

as  noun  and  adjective  ;  ll)e  incongruity  of  likening  Jehovah  to  a  river  which 
his  own   breath  drives  along;  anel  the  iniprohahility  that  "'^  is  here  used  in 
a  dillrient  sense  from  thai  wlilcli  all  attach  to  the  plural  in  v.  18.      'J'o  this 
may  be  added  the  unnatural  image  of  a  stream  rendered  rapid  by  the  wind, 
and  (against  Maurer's  own   interpretation)    the  gratuitous  assumption   that 
the  Polel  of  Cfl3  is  used  in  this  one  place  and  as  a  causative,  when  that  idea 
is  expressed  so  often   elsewhere  by  the  Hiphil  of  the  same   verb.     On    the 
other  hand,  Gesenius  iiimself  derives  c:   from   a    root  DC3  to  raise,  which 
might  therefore  be  poetically  used  without  the  noun  to  express  the  whole 
idea  ;  or  the  form   beCoie  us  might  without  absurdity  be  looked  upon  as  an 
amalgam  of  the  words  C3  N'l": ,  which  are  combined  in  ch.  5  :  26.   13  :  2.  etc. 
(Compare  the   compound    forms  tizihn  and  =^i<:bn,  as  explained  by  Heng- 
stenberg  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  Vol.  I.  p.  218.)     The  common 
version  of  this   vexed  clause,  therefore,  is  entirely  defensible,  and  clearly 
preferable   to  the  one   which    has   so   nearly  superseded   it.     Considering, 
however,  the  objections  to  which  botli  are  open,  it  may  be  possible  to  come 
still  nearer  to  the  true  sense  by  combining  what  is  least  objectionable  in  the 
other  expositions;  and  in  this   view,  no  interpreter  perhaps  has  been  more 
successful   than  Cocceius,  who  translates  the  clause,  quia  venict  ianquam 
jluvius  hostis  in  quo   Spiritus   Domini  signum  praefcrt.     Besides   giving 
every  word  its  strictest  or  most  probable  interpretation,  this  ingenious  version, 
as  if  by  anticipation,  shuns  the  last  objection  to  Vitringa's,   namely  that  of 
Knobel,  that  the  context  does  not  lead  us  to  expect  an  allusion  to  the  com- 
ing of  God's  enemies  against  him,  but  rather  to  his  coming  against  them,  as 
the    preceding   clause  declares   that  all  the  ends  of  the  earth  shall  fear  his 
name  and  his  glory.     The  objection  of  Vitringa,  that  the  instruments  of  the 
divine  purpose  would  not  here  be  called  an  enemy,  is  without  weight ;  since 
enemy   is   a   relative  expression,  and  Jehovah  is  continually  represented  as 
sustaining  this  relation  to  the  wicked  world.     Another  merit  of  Cocceius's 
interpretation  is  that  instead  of  giving   ia   the  rare  and  doubtful  sense  of 
against  him,  or  the  still  more  doubtful  office  of  a  mere  connective  of  the 
verb  and  object,  he  explains  it  strictly  as  denoting  in  it,  and  at  the  same 
time  introduces  a  new  and  striking  image,  that  of  the  triumphant  flag  cr 
signal  erected  in  the  stream  itself  and  floating  on  its  waves  as  it  approaches. 
— On  the  whole,  then,  the  meaning  of  the  verse  appears  to  be,  that  the  ends 
of  the  earth  shall  see  and  fear  the  name  and  glory  of  Jehovah  ;  because  when 
he  approaches  as  their  enemy,  it  will  be  like  an  overflowing  stream  (ch. 
8  :  7,  8.  28  :  15),  in  which  his  spirit  bears  aloft  the  banner  or  the  signal  of 
victory. — The  specific  explanation  of  "if^S?  in  the  Targum  as  denoting  the 
Euphrates  is  a  very  insufficient  ground  for  Vitringa's  application  of  the  pas- 
sage to  the  Saracens  and  Tartars. ' 


CHAPTERLIX.  267 

V.  20.  Then  shall  come  for  Zion  a  Redeemer,  one!  fur  the  converts  of 
apostasy  in  Jacob,  saith  Jehovah.  The  English  then  is  here  used  to  con- 
vey ihe  full  force  of  the  Vav  conversive,  which  cannot  be  expressed  in  our 
idiom  by  the  simple  copulative  and.  The  original  construction  necvssarily 
suggests  the  idea  of  succession  and  dependence,  b  is  not  the  proper  par- 
ticle of  motion  or  direction,  though  it  often  supplies  its  place  as  well  as  that 
of  other  prejjositions.  This  arises  from  the  fact  repeatedly  stated  heretofore, 
that  ^  properly  denotes  relation  in  the  widest  sense,  and  is  most  commonly 
equivalent  to  as  to,  with  respect  to,  the  precise  relation  being  left  to  be 
determined  by  the  context.  So  in  this  place  V''^i  strictly  means  nothing 
more  than  that  the  advent  of  the  great  deliverer  promised  has  respect  to 
Zion  or  the  chosen  people,  without  deciding  what  particular  respect, 
whether  local,  temporal,  or  of  another  nature  altogether.  Hence  the  Sep- 
tuagint  version,  tir/.tv  2VcoV,  though  it  may  be  too  specific,  is  not  contra- 
dictory to  the  original;  and  even  Paurs  translation,  ex  -iTtcJr,  although  it 
seems  completely  to  reverse  the  sense,  is  not  so  wholly  inconsistent  with  it 
as  has  sometimes  been  pretended.  For  although  the  Hebrew  words  do  not 
mean  from  Zion,  they  mean  that  which  may  include /rora  Zion  in  its  scope  ; 
because  it  might  be  by  going  out  of  Zion  that  he  was  to  act  as  her  deliverer, 
and  the  Apostle  might  intend  by  his  translation  to  suggest  the  idea  that 
Zion's  redeemer  was  to  be  also  the  redeemer  of  the  Gentiles.  In  no  case 
therefore,  is  there  any  ground  for  charging  the  Apostle  with  perversion,  or 
the  Hebrew  text  wath  conuption,  as  Lowth  and  J.  D.  iMichaelis  do  by  their 
assimilation  of  it  to  the  words  of  Paul.  It  seems  to  me,  however  that  the 
variation  in  the  latter  not  only  from  the  Hebrew  but  the  Septuaifint  too-ether 
with  the  use  which  the  Apostle  makes  of  this  citation,  warrant  the  conclusion 
that  he  is  not  there  interpreting  Isaiah,  but  employing  the  familiar  lanouao-e 
of  an  ancient  prophecy  as  the  vehicle  of  a  new  one.  Other  examples  of 
this  practice  have  occurred  before,  nor  is  there  any  thing  unworthy  or  unrea- 
sonable in  it,  when  the  context  in  both  cases  clearly  shows  the  author's  drift 
as  in  the  case  befcr  us,  where  it  seems  no  less  clear  that  Paul  employs  the 
language  to  predict  the  future  restoration  of  the  Jews,  than  that  Isaiah  uses 
it  to  foretell  the  deliverance  of  God's  people  from  their  enemies  in  case  of 
their  repentance,  without  any  reference  to  local,  temporal,  or  national  dis- 
tinctions. This  hypothesis  in  reference  to  Paul's  quotation  has  the  advan- 
tage of  accounting  for  his  change  of  the  original  expression,  which  may  then 
be  regarded  as  a  kind  of  caution  against  that  very  error  into  which  inter- 
preters have  generally  fallen.  As  to  Knobel's  figment  of  Zion  representing 
the  captivity  in  Babylon,  it  seems  to  call  for  no  additional  discussion.  (See 
above,  on  ch.  40:  2.) — The  expression  converts  of  transgression  or  apos- 
tasy is  perfectly  intelligible,  though  unusual   and   perhaps   without  exam- 


3G3  C  FI  A  P  T  E  R    LIX. 

pic ;  since  according  to  analogy  the  phrase  would  seem  to  mean  those 
relapsing  into  apostasy,  the  impossibility  of  which  sense  conspires  with 
the  context  to  determine  as  the  true  sense  that  which  every  reader  spon- 
taneously attaches  to  it. 

V.  21.  And  /(or  as  for  ??/c) — (his  {is)  my  covenant  with  them,  saith 
Jehovah.  My  Spirit  which  is  on  thee,  and  my  words  ivhich  I  have  placed 
in  thy  mouth,  shall  not  depart  out  of  thy  mouth,  nor  out  of  the  mouth  of  thy 
seed,  nor  out  of  the  mouth  of  thy  seed's  seed,  saith  Jehovah,  from,  hencc- 
feri.h  and  for  ever  (ov  from  noiv  and  to  eternity).  The  absolute  pronoun 
at  the  beginning  is  not  merely  emphatic,  but  intended  to  intimate  a  change 
of  person,  God  himself  reappearing  as  the  speaker.  There  may  also  be 
allusion  to  the  use  of  the  pronoun  in  the  promise  to  Noah  (Gen.  9  :  9),  which 
was  ever  present  to  the  mind  of  Jewish  readers  as  the  great  standing  type 
and  model  of  God's  covenants  and  promises,  n'^n^  denotes  the  stipulation 
which  Jehovah  condescends  to  make  in  return  for  the  repentance  and  con- 
version implicitly  required  in  the  verse  preceding.  This  view  of  the  con- 
nexion may  serve  still  further  to  explain  the  introduction  of  the  pronoun,  as 
denoting  upon  my  part,  and  re/erring  to  the  previous  requisition  of  some- 
thin"-  upon  theirs.  The  only  natural  antecedent  of  the  pronoun  them  is  the 
converts  of  apostasy  in  Jacob,  to  whom  the  promise  in  v.  20  is  limited. 
These  are  then  suddenly  addressed,  or  rather  the  discourse  is  turned  to  Israel 
himself  as  the  progenitor  or  as  the  ideal  representative  of  his  descendants,  not 
considered  merelv  as  a  nation  but  as  a  church,  and  therefore  including  prose- 
lytes as  well  as  natives,  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  nay  believing  Gentiles  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  unbelieving  Jews.  This  idea  of  the  Israel  of  God  and 
of  the  Prophecies  is  too  clearly  stated  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  to  be 
misapprehended  or  denied  by  any  who  admit  the  authority  of  the  Apostle. 
This  interpretation  is  moreover  not  a  mere  incidental  application  of  Old 
Testament  expressions  to  another  subject,  but  a  protracted  and  repeated 
exposition  of  the  mutual  relations  of  the  old  and  new  economy  and  of  the 
natural  and  spiritual  Israel.  To  this  great  body,  considered  as  the  Israel  of 
God  the  promise  now  before  us  is  addressed,  a  promise  of  continued  spiritual 
influence  exerted  through  the  word  and  giving  it  effect.  The  phrase,  upon 
thee  here  as  elsewhere  implies  influence  from  above  and  has  respect  to  the 
figure  of  the  Spirit's  descending  and  abiding  on  the  object.  The  particular 
mention  of  the  mouth  cannot  be  explained  as  having  reference  merely  to  the 
reception  of  the  word,  in  which  case  the  ear  would  have  been  more  appro- 
priate. The  true  explanation  seems  to  be  that  Israel  is  here,  as  in  many 
other  parts  of  this  great  prophecy,  regarded  not  merely  as  a  receiver  but  as 
a  dispenser  of  the  truth, — an  office  with  which  as  we  have  seen  the  Body  is 


CHAPTER    LX. 


369 


invested  in  connexion  with  the  Head,  and  in  perpetual  subordination  to  him, 
Israel,  as  well  as  the  IMessiah,  and  in  due  dependence  on  him,  was  to  be  the 
light  of  the  gentiles,  the  reclaimer  of  apostate  nations;  and  in  this  hio-h 
mission  and  vocation  was  to  be  sustained  and  prospered  by  the  never- 
failing  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  the  author  and  the  finisher  of  all 
revelation.  (See  above,  ch.  42  :  1-7.  44:  3.  49  :  1-9.  51  :  16.  54  :  3. 
56:  6-S.  58  :  12.  And  compare  Jer.  31  :  31.  Joel  2  :  28.  Ezek.  36  :  27. 
39 :  29.) 


CHAPTER    LX. 

Having  repeatedly  and  fully  shown   that  the  national   pre-eminence  of 
Israel   was   not   to   be   perpetual,  that   the  loss  of  it  was  the  natural  conse- 
quence and   righteous   letribution  of  iniquity,  and   that  their  loss  did  not 
involve  the  destruction  of  the  true  church  or  spiritual  Israel,  the  Prophet 
now  proceeds  to  show  that  to  the  latter  the  approaching  change  would  be  a 
glorious  and  blessed  one.      He  accordingly  describes  it  as  a  new  and  divine 
light  rising  upon  Zion,  v.  1.     He  contrasts  it  with  the  darkness  of  surround- 
ing nations,  v.  2.     Yet  these  are  not  excluded  from  participation  in  the  light, 
v.  3.     The  elect  in  every  nation  are  the  children  of  the  church,  and  shall  be 
gathered  to  her,  vs.  4,  5.     On  one  side  he  sees  the  oriental  caravans  and 
flocks  approaching,  vs.  6,  7.     On  the  other,  the  commercial  fleets  of  western 
nations,  vs.  8,  9.     What  seemed  to  be  rejection  is  in  fact  the  highest  favour, 
V.  10.     The  glory  of  the  true  church  is  her  freedom  from  local  and  national 
restrictions,  v.  11.     None  are  excluded  from  her  pale  but  those  who  exclude 
themselves  and  thereby  perish,  v.  12.     External  nature  shall  contribute  to 
her  splendour,  v.  13.    Her  very  enemies  shall  do  her  homage,  v.  14.    Instead 
of  being  cast  off,  she  is  glorified  for  ever,  v,  15.     Instead  of  being  identified 
with  one   nation,  she   shall   derive  support  from  all,  v.   16.      All  that  is 
changed  in  her  condition  shall  be  changed  for  the  better,  v.  17.     The  evils 
of  her  former  state  are  done  away,  v.  18.     Even  some  of  its  advantages  are 
now  superfluous,  v.  19.     What  remains  shall  no  longer  be  precarious,  v.  20. 
The  splendour  of  this  new  dispensation  is  a  moral  and  a  spiritual  splendour, 
but  attended  by  external  safety  and  protection,  vs.  21,  22.     All  this  shall; 
certainly  and  promptly  come  to  pass  at  the  appointed  time,  v.  22. 

24 


370  C  II  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  . 

Here  as  elsewhere  tlie  new  dispensation  is  contrasted,  as  a  whole,  with 
that  before  it.  We  are  not  therefore  to  seek  the  fulfihnent  of  the  prophecy 
in  any  one  period  of  history  exchisively,  nor  to  consider  actual  corruptions 
and  afflictions  as  inconsistent  with  the  splendid  vision  of  the  New  Jerusalem 
presented  to  tlie  Proj)h(.t,  not  in  its  successive  stages,  but  at  one  grand 
panoramic  view. 

V.  1.  Arise,  be  liirht  ;  for  thy  light  is  come,  and  the  glory  of  Jehovah 
has  risen  upon  thee.     Tiiese  are  the  words,  not  of  a  prophetic  chorus,  as 
Vitrin"'a  imagines,  but  of  Isaiah,,  speaking  in  the  name  of  God  to  Zion  or 
Jerusalem,  not  merely  as  a  city,  nor  even  as  a  capital,  but  as  the  centre, 
representative,  and  syn^bol  of  the  church  or  chosen   people.     A  precisely 
analoc'"OUs  example  is  alForded  by  the  use  of  the  name  Uome  in  modern  reli- 
gious controversy,  not  to  denote  the  city  or  the  civil  government  as  such,  but 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  with  all  lis  parts,  dependencies,  and  interests. 
The  one  usage  is  as  natural  and  intelligible  as  the  other  ;  and  if  no  one  hesi- 
tates to  say  that  Newman  has  apostatized  to  Rome, or  that  his  influence  has 
added  greatly  to  the  strength  of  Rome  in   England,  no  one  can  justly  treat 
it  as  a  wresting  of  the  Prophet's  language  to  explain  it  in  precisely  the  same 
manner.      And   the  aigimi;  lUs  em[)loyed  to  prove  that  the  Isiael  and  Jeru- 
salem of  these   prediciions   are   the  natural    Israel    and   the   literal   Jerusa- 
lem, would  equally  avail  to  prove,  in  future  ages,  that  the  hopes  and   fears 
expressed  at  this  day  in  relation  to  the  growing  or  decreasing  power  of  l^ome 
have  reference  to  the  increase  of  the  city,  or  the  fall  of  the  temporal  monarchy 
established  there. — The  object  of  address  is  here  so  plain  that  several  of  the 
ancient  versions  actually  introduce  tiie  name  Jerusalem.     The  Septuagint 
renders  both  the  verbs  at  the  beginning  by  mKuCCov,  which  is  probably  to  be 
regarded  not  as  a  difference  ol  text  but  as  a  mere  inadvertence.     The  com- 
mon version  shine  is  dei'ective  only  in  not  showing  the  aflinity  between  the 
verb  and  noun  which  is  so  marked   in   the  original.     The  English  risen  is 
also  less  expressive,  because  more  ambiguous  and  vague,  than   the   Hebrew 
n")| ,  which  means  not  to  rise  in  general,  but  to  -rise  above  the  iiorizon,  to 
appear.     The  glory  of  Jehovah  is  his  manifested   presence,  with  allusion  to 
the  cloudy  pillar  and  the  Shecbinah.      Upon  thee  represents  Jerusalem  as 
exposed  and  subjected  to  the  full  blase  of  this  rising  light.     Rosenn)uller's 
notion  that  he  light,  means  be  cheerful,  as  the  eyes  are  elsewhere  said  to  be 
enlightened  (1  Sam.  14  :  '27,  29),  is  inconsistent  with  the  figure  of  a  rising 
sun.     The  explanation  of  the  words  by  others  as  an  exhortation  to  come  to 
the  light,  supposes  the  object  of  address  to  be  a  person,  which  is  not  the 
case.     Light,  and  especially  the  light  imparted  by  the  divine  presence,  is  a 
common  figure  for  prosperity,  both  temporal  and  spiritual.      Hitzig  gravely 
represents  it  as  certain  from  this  verse,  taken  in  connexion  with  ch.  62  :  11, 


C  II  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  .  37 1 

that  between  the  completion  of  the  foreyoin^  chapter  and  the  beginning  of 
this.  Cyrus  issued  his  decree  for  the  return  of  the  captivity  to  Palestine.  To 
an  unbiassed  reader  it  must  be  evident  that  this  is  a  direct  continuation  of 
the  foregoing  context,  and  that  what  follows  Is  distinguished  from  what 
goes  before  only  hy  the  increasing  prominence  willi  which  the  normal  and 
ideal  perfection  of  the  church  is  set  forth,  as  the  projjhecy  draws  near  to  a 
conclusion. 

V.  2.  For  behold,  the  darkness  shall  cover  the  earth,  and  a  gloom  the 
nations,  and  upon  thee  shall  Jehovah  rise,  and  his  glory  upon  thee  shall  be 
seen.  The  general  description  in  the  first  vevsa  is  now  amplified  and  carried 
out  into  detail.  Of  this  specification  the  verse  before  us  contains  only  the 
beginning.  To  regard  it  as  the  w  hole  would  be  to  make  the  Prophet  say 
the  very  opposite  of  what  he  does  say.  The  perfection  of  the  glory 
promised  to  the  church  is  not  to  arise  from  its  contrast  with  the  darkness  of 
the  world  around  it,  but  fron)  the  difiusion  of  its  light  until  that  darkness 
disappears.  The  Pioj)het  here  reverts  foi-  a  moment  to  the  previous  con- 
dition of  the  world,  in  order  to  describe  with  more  effect  the  glorious  change 
to  be  produced.  He  is  not  therefore  to  be  understood  as  sa)  ing  that  Zion 
shall  be  glorious  because  while  the  nations  are  in  darkness  she  is  to  enjoy 
exclusive  light,  but  because  the  light  imparted  to  her  first  shall  draw  the 
nations  to  her. — ^i;'"?  is  essentially  equivalent  to  "tf.n  ,  but  stronger  and 
more  poetical.  Louth  translates  it  vapour,  which  would  be  an  anti-cliujax, 
and  has  no  etymological  exactness  to  recommend  it.  Gesenius  translates 
it  night,  but  in  his  lexicon  explains  it  as  a  compound  or  mixed  form,  mearn'ng 
a  dark  cloud.  Jehovah  and  his  glory,  which  are  jointly  said  to  rise  in  the 
preceding  verse,  are  here  divided  between  two  parallel  members,  and  the 
rising  predicated  of  the  first  aloni".  Lowth's  version  of  the  last  word,  shall 
he  conspicuous,  is  vastly  inferior  both  in  vigour  and  exactness  to  the  com- 
mon version.  Instead  of  w/;o/t  ihee  Noyes  has  over  thee,  which  gives  a 
good  sense  in  itself,  but  not  an  adequate  one,  besides  gratuitously  vaiying 
the  translation  of  the  particle  in  one  short  sentence. 

V.  3.  And  7iations  shall  walk  in  thy  light,  and  kings  in  the  brightness 
of  thy  rising,  i.  e.  thy  rising  brightness,  or  the  bright  light  which  shall  rise 
upon  thee.  The  common  version,  to  thy  light,  may  seem  at  first  sight 
more  exact  than  the  one  here  given,  but  is  really  less  so.  The  Hebrew 
preposition  h  does  not  correspond  lo  our  to  as  a  particle  of  motion  or  direc- 
tion, but  expresses  relation  in  the  widest  and  most  general  manner.  It  is 
often  therefore  interchanged  with  other  particles,  and  to,  among  the  rest,  but 
is  not  to  be  so  translated  here  or  in  any  other  case  without  necessity.  In 
this  case  it  seems  to  mean  that  they  shall  walk  with  reference  to  the  light 


372  CHAPTER    L  X  . 

in  question,  which  in  English  may  be  best  expressed  by  iji,  but  not  as  a 
literal  translation.  The  sense  thus  yielded  is  in  some  respects  better  than 
the  other,  as  suggesting  the  idea  not  of  mere  attraction  but  of  general  diffu- 
sion. By  light  we  are  then  to  understand  the  radiation  from  the  luminous 
centre  and  not  merely  the  centre  itself.  This  explanation  of  the  verse  is 
given  by  the  best  of  the  modern  interpreters.  Some  of  these,  however,  arbi- 
trarily apply  it  to  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  exile,  who  were  to  be 
accompanied  by  heathen  king?  as  their  guides  and  protectors.  As  a  pro- 
phecy this  never  was  fulfilled.  As  a  visionary  anticipation  it  could  never 
have  been  entertained  by  a  contemporary  writer,  such  as  these  interpreters 
suppose  the  author  of  the  book  to  be.  Those  who  with  J.  D.  Michaelis 
and  Henderson  apply  this  passage  exclusively  to  the  future  restoration  of 
the  Jews,  are  of  course  cut  off  from  all  historical  illustration  of  its  meaning, 
which  the  first  of  these  writers  therefore  properly  dispenses  with.  The  allega- 
tion of  the  other  that  his  own  position  is  the  only  one  "  that  can  be  maintained 
consistently  with  a  strict  adherence  to  definite  principles  of  interpretation,'' 
may  be  denied  as  boldly  as  it  is  affirmed.  His  charge  of  "  a  perpetual  vacil- 
lancy  between  the  literal  and  the  spiritual,  the  Jews  and  the  Gentiles,  the 
past  and  the  future,"  lies  only  against  those  interpretations  which  regard  the 
book  as  a  succession  of  specific  and  detached  predictions.  If  our  hypothesis 
be  true,  that  it  is  one  indivisible  exhibition  of  tiie  Church,  under  its  two 
successive  phases,  and  in  its  essential  relations  to  its  Head  and  to  the  world; 
the  objection  is  not  only  inconclusive  but  absurd.  How  far  it  can  be  alleged 
with  truth,  and  without  bringing  the  Old  and  New  Testament  into  collision, 
that  the  future  glory  of  the  Jew  ish  people  as  a  people  is  the  great  theme  of 
these  prophecies,  and  that  the  Gentiles  are  biought  forward  chiefly  for  the 
purpose  of  "  gracing  the  triumphs  "  of  the  Jews,  will  be  seen  hereafter,  if  not 
evident  already.  In  the  meantime,  notl)ing  has  been  yet  alleged  to  justify 
the  arbitrary  supposition  of  a  sudden  leap  fiom  one  subject  to  another, 
scarcely  more  "  satisfactory*'  than  a  "  perpetual  vacillancy"  between 
the  two. 

V.  4.  Lift  up  thine  eyes  round  about  (i.  c.  in  all  directions)  and  sec  ;  all 
of  them  are  gathered,  they  come  to  thee,  thy  sons  from  afar  shall  come,  and 
thy  daughters  at  the  side  shall  be  borne.  See  ch.  43  :  5-7  and  49  :  18-23. 
The  English  Version  seems  to  suppose  an  antithesis  between  pinnTo  and 
Ti-^s ,  which  last  it  accordingly  translates  at  thy  side,  i.  e.  near  thee. 
Lowth  and  Henderson  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  oriental  practice,  described 
by  Chardin,  of  carrying  young  children  astride  upon  the  hip.  The  latest 
writers  simply  give  to  is  the  sense  of  arm,  because  the  arm  is  at  the  side ! 
The  primary  sense  of  l^x  seems  to  be  that  of  carrying,  with  special  refer- 
ence to  children.     Jerome  understands  it  to  mean  nursing,  in  the  sense  of 


CHAPTER    LX.  373 

giving  suck,  and  translates  the  phrase  before  us  lac  sugent,  which  has  been 
corrupted  in  the  Vulgate  text  to  ex  latere  surgent,  Grotius  needlessly 
infers  that  Jerome  read  t::  instead  of  "i:s.  Those  who  confine  tliese  prophe- 
cies to  the  Babylonish  exile,  understand  this  as  describing  the  agency  of 
heathen  states  and  sovereigns  in  the  restoration.  But  in  this,  as  in  the 
parallel  passages,  there  is,  by  a  strange  coincidence,  no  word  or  phrase 
implying  restoration  or  return,  but  the  image  evidently  is  that  of  enlarge- 
ment and  accession  ;  liie  children  thus  brought  to  Zion  being  not  tliose 
whom  she  had  lost,  but  such  as  she  had  never  before  known,  as  is  evident 
from  ch.  49:21.  The  event  predicted  is  therefore  neither  the  former 
restoration  of  the  Jews,  as  Henderson  alleges  in  the  other  cases,  nor  their 
future  restoration,  as  he  no  less  confidently  alleges  here.  The  two  inter- 
pretations are  both  groundless  and  destructive  of  each  other.  This  perpe- 
tual insertion  of  ideas  not  expressed  in  the  original,  is  quite  as  unreasonable 
as  Vitringa's  being  always  haunted  by  his  phantom  of  a  chorus,  which  he 
here  sees  taking  Zion  by  the  hand,  consoling  her,  etc.  He  is  also  of  opinion 
that  by  daughters  we  are  here  to  understand  weak  Christians  who  require 
peculiar  tenderness  from  ministers.  There  is  more  probability  in  Knobel's 
suggestion,  that  the  Prophet  made  his  picture  true  to  nature  by  describing 
the  sons  as  walking,  and  the  daugljters  as  being  carried. 

V.  5.  Then  shall  thou  see  (ov  fear)  and  brighten  up  (or  overjioio),  and 
thy  heart  shall  throb  and  swell ;  because  (or  when)  the  abundance  of  the 
sea  shall  he  turned  upon  thee,  the  strength  of  nations  shall  come  unto  thee. 
This  translation  exhibits  the  points  of  agret-ment  as  well  as  of  difference 
among  interpreters  in  reference  to  this  verse.  All  agree  that  it  describes  a 
great  and  joyful  change  to  be  produced  by  the  accession  of  the  gentiles  to 
the  churcl)  or  chosen  people,  and  tlie  etlect  of  this  enlargement  on  the 
latter.  Aben  Ezra,  Lowth,  Vitringa,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Doderlein,  Justi, 
Gesenius,  and  Umbreit,  derive  ^X';n  from  N""^,  to  fear,  and  apply  it  to  the 
painful  sensation  which  often  attends  sudden  joy,  and  which  is  certainly 
described  in  the  next  clause.  Nearly  all  the  later  writers  repeat  Lowth's 
fine  parallel  quotation  from  Lucretius  : 

His  tibi  me  rebus  qijaei.l.iiii  (iiviria  voliiptas 
Percipit  attjue  horror — . 

Above  sixty  manuscripts  and  one  of  the  oldest  editions  (Bib.  Soncin.) 
require  this  explanation,  by  reading  either  "X"i"ri ,  ^N":ri ,  or  "^x"!;},  none  of 
which  can  regularly  come  from  nxn  to  see.  Yet  the  latter  derivation  is  not 
only  sanctioned  by  all  the  ancient  versions,  and  preferred  by  Kimchi,  but 
approved  by  Luther,  Clericus,  Rosenmiiller,  Maurer,  Hitzig,  Henderson, 
Ewald,  and  Knobel.  It  is  curious  to  see  how  the  parallelism  is  urged  on 
cither  side  of  this  dispute,  and  that  with  equal  plausibility.     Thus  Vitringa 


371  CHAPTER    LX. 

t!)iiiks  that  thou  shall  see  \\oii!(l  he  a  vain  repetition  of  the  lift  up  thine 
eyes  and  see  in  v.  4,  while  Knobel  describes  the  double  reference  to  fear  in 
this  verse  as  a  "  lasti^e  Tautolo'ne."  As  to  "Hj  the  difficidty  is  in  choosinj' 
between  its  two  admitted  senses  of  flowing  (ch.  2:  2)  and  of  shining  (Ps. 
34:6).  The  former  is  preferred  by  Jerome,  who  translates  it  ojliics  ;  by 
Junius  and  Tremellius,  who  have  covjlucs  ;  and  by  the  English  and  Dutch 
Versions,  the  latter  of  which  refers  it  to  the  confluence  of  crowds  produced 
by  any  strange  occurrence.  Vitringa  makes  it  mean  \o  jloiv  out,  and  Lowth 
to  overjloiv  with  joy.  But  all  the  latest  writers  of  authority  give  tlie  word 
the  same  sense  as  in  Ps.  34  :  G,  which  is  well  expressed  by  Henderson  in 
strong  though  homely  English,  thou  shall  look  and  brighten  up.  His  ver- 
sion of  the  next  clause,  thy  heart  shall  throb  and.  dilate,  may  be  in^proved 
by  changing  the  last  word,  which  he  took  from  Lowth,  to  the  equivalent 
but  plainer  5U*67/. — 'ine  ,  which  Lowth  renders  rtrfflcd,  is  admitted  by  most 
writers  to  be  here  used  in  its  primary  sense  of  trembling,  w  hicl)  in  reference 
to  the  heart  may  be  best  expressed  by  beating  or  throbbing.  But  the  usual 
though  secondary  sense  of  fearing  is  retained  by  Luzzatto,  who  regards  it  as 
descriptive  of  her  terror  at  the  sight  of  su[)posed  enemies  approaching;  and  by 
Hendewerk,  who  applies  it  to  her  apprehension  that  she  would  not  have  suffi- 
cient room  for  the  accommodation  of  the  strangers.  The  usual  and  proper  sense 
of  "3  (for,  because)  is  perfectly  appropriate  ;  the  only  reason  for  preferring  that 
of  when,  ns  Vitringa,  Gesenius,  and  others  do,  is  its  apparent  relation  to 
tlie  TX  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence,  as  if  he  had  said,  ichen  the  abun- 
dance of  the  sea,  etc.  then  shalt  thou  see,  etc.  According  to  the  other 
explanation  of  this  particle,  the  ts  refers  to  the  foregoing  context.  Another 
doubt  arises  from  the  ambiguity  of  the  nouns  ■■irn  and  b';n  ,  both  of  which 
may  be  applied  either  to  things  or  persons, — the  first  denoting  sometimes  a 
multitude  (ch.  17  :  12),  sometimes  abundance  (Ps.  37:  16);  the  other 
signifying  sometimes  a  military  force  (Ex.  14  :  28),  sometimes  wealtls 
(Gen.  34  :  29.)  As  in  either  case  the  different  meanings  arc  only  modifi- 
cations of  one  radical  idea — a  midtitude  of  persons  and  a  multitude  of 
things,  a  tnilitary  force  and  pecuniary  force, — as  both  the  meanings  of  each 
word  are  here  appropriate, — and  as  interpieters^  whichever  meaning  they 
prefer,  contrive  to  join  the  other  with  it, — we  may  safely  infer  that  it  was 
also  the  intention  of  the  writer  to  convey  the  whole  idea,  that  the  gentiles 
should  devote  themselves  and  their  possessions  to  the  service  of  Jehovah. 
(Compare  Zech.  14  :  14.) — For  of  the  sea  J.  D.  Michaelis  has  from  the 
west  ;  and  other  writers  who  retain  the  strict  translation,  suppose  a  designed 
antithesis  between  the  west  in  this  verse  and  the  eastern  nations  mentioned 
in  the  next.  The  conversion  here  predicted  has  the  same  sense  as  in 
English,  viz.  the  conversion  of  the  property  of  one  to  the  use  of  another. 
Upon  can  hardly  be  a  simple  substitute  for  to,  but  is  rather  intended  to 


CHAPTER    LX.  375 

suggest  the  same  idea  as  when  we  speak  of  gifts  or  favours  being  showered 
or  lavished  on  a  person.  This  force  of  the  particle  is  well  expressed  in 
Lowth's  translation,  whin  the  riches  of  the  sea  shall  be  poured  in  upon  thee, 
but  with  too  little  regard  to  the  proper  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  verb.  The 
next  clause  is  a  repetition  of  the  same  thought,  but  without  a  figure.  If  this 
had  reference  to  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon,  it  was  an  extra- 
vagant anticipation  utterly  falsified  by  tlie  event.  But  this,  although  it  tnay 
commend  the  hypothesis  to  those  who  deny  the  inspiration  of  the  prophet, 
is  itself  a  refutation  of  it  to  the  minds  of  those  who  occupy  a  contrary  posi- 
tion. The  most  natural  interpretation  of  the  verse  is  that  which  makes  it  a 
promise  of  indefinite  enlargement,  compreiiending  both  the  persons  and  the 
riches  of  the  nations.  There  is  something  amusing  at  the  present  day  in 
Vitringa's  suggesting  as  a  difficulty  to  be  cleared  away  from  the  interpretation 
of  the  passage,  that  as  Christianity  is  a  spiritual  religion  it  can  have  no  great 
occasion  for  gold  or  silver.  Even  literally  understood,  the  promise  is  intelli- 
gible and  most  welcome  to  the  philanthropic  Christian,  as  affording  means 
for  the  diffusion  of  the  truth  and  the  conversion  of  the  world. 

V.  6.  A  stream  of  camels  shall  cover  thee,  young  camels  (or  dromeda- 
ries) of  Midian  and  Ephah,  all  of  them  from  Sheba  shall  come,  gold  and 
incense  shall  they  bear,  and  the  ^^raz.'jfs  of  Jehovah  as  i^ood  news.  This 
last  form  of  expression  is  adopted  in  order  to  convey  the  full  force  of  the 
Hebrew  verb,  which  does  not  mean  simply  to  announce  or  even  to  announce 
with  joy,  but  to  announce  glad  tidings.  (See  above,  on  ch.  40  :  9.)  Re- 
taining this  sense  here,  the  word  would  seem  to  signify  not  ihe  direct  praise 
of  God,  but  the  announcement  of  the  fact  that  others  praised  him,  and  the 
messengers  would  be  described  as  bringing  to  Jerusalem  the  news  of  the 
conversion  of  their  people.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  the  primary  mean- 
ing of  "i"J^3  may  be  simply  to  announce,  as  in  ch.  52:7.  1  Kings  1  :  42. 
I  Sam.  4  :  17.  2  Sam.  18  :  20,  26,  and  that  the  derivation  given  by  Gese- 
nius  is  fictitious.  But  in  no  case  is  it  necessary,  with  Vitringa,  to  exchange 
the  settled  meaning  of  m^np  for  the  doubtful  one  of  praiseworthy  acts. — 
Ewald  has  greatly  improved  upon  the  usual  translation  of  !^"S^  by  exchang- 
ing multitude  for  stream  or  food,  the  version  given  by  Jerome  (inundatio), 
and  not  only  more  expressive  than  the  other,  but  in  perfect  accordance  with 
the  etymology,  and  with  the  usage  of  the  noun  itself  in  Job.  22 :  11.  38  :  34.. 
When  applied  in  prose  to  a  drove  of  horses  (Ez.  20  :  10)  or  a  trooj)  of 
horsemen  (2  Kings  9  :  17),  it  requires  of  course  a  different  version.  Thig 
explanation  of  f^"s\y  throws  light  upon  the  })hrase  shall  cover  thee,  a  term> 
elsewhere  applied  to  water  (e.  g.  ch.  1 1  :  9).  and  suggesting  here  the  jioet- 
tcal   idea  of  a  city  not  merely  thronged  but  flooded  with  .\rabian  caravans. 


376  O  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  . 

This  is  at  least  more  natural  liian  Vitringa's  notion  that  the  camels  are  said 
to  cover  that  which  they  approach,  because  they  are  so  tall  that  they  over- 
top and  overshadow  it.  The  camel  has  been  always  so  peculiarly  associ- 
ated with  the  Arabs  tliat  ihoy  are  described  by  Strabo  as  amirliui  y.afAtjXn^oaxoi. 
They  are  here,  according  to  Isaiah's  practice,  represented  by  a  group  of 
ancestral  names.  Ephah  was  the  eldest  son  of  Midian  (Gen.  25  :  4),  who 
was  himself  the  son  of  Abraham  by  Keturah  (Gen.  25  :  2)  and  the  brother 
of  Jokshan  the  father  of  Sheb;i.  (Gen.  25  :  1-4.)  The  first  two  represent 
northern  and  central  Arabia,  the  third  Arabia  Felix,  so  called  by  the  old 
geou-raphers  because  of  the  rich  products  which  it  furnished  to  the  northern 
traders,  either  from  its  own  resources  or  as  an  entrepot  of  Indian  commerce. 
The  queen  of  this  country,  by  whom  Solomon  was  visited,  brought  with  her 
gold,  gems,  and  spices  in  abundance  (I  Kings  10:2),  and  we  read  else- 
where of  its  frankincense  (Jer.  6  :  20),  its  Plieniclan  commerce  (Ezek. 
27  :  29),  and  its  caravans  (Job  6  :  19),  while  those  of  Midian  are  men- 
tioned even  in  the  patriarchal  history  (Gen.  37  :  28).  Bochart  supposes 
the  Midian  of  this  passage  to  be  the  Madiene  of  Josephus  and  the  Modion 
of  Ptolemy,  and  identifies  Ephah  with  ihe''ln7Tog  of  the  Greek  geographers. 
It  is  more  accordant  with  usage,  however,  to  explain  them  as  the  names  of 
the  national  progenitors,  representing  their  descendants. — It  matters  little 
whether  dromedaries  or  young  camels  be  the  true  translation.  (For  the 
arguments  on  both  sides  see  Bochari's  Ilicrozoicon,  Vol.  I.  p.  15,  with 
Rosenmiiller's  Note.)  The  former  is  preferable  only  because  it  gives  us  a 
distinct  name,  as  in  the  original,  which  is  perhaps  the  reason  that  Gesenius 
retains  it  in  his  Version  but  rejects  ]t  in  his  Commentary.  Aben  Ezra  and 
Saadias  make  z  a  preposition  and  ^^-  the  plural  of  "o  ,  which  in  Gen.  31  :  34 
denotes  a  litter  or  woman's  saddle  used  in  riding  upon  camels. — The  verb 
nsn;;  docs  not  agree  with  the  preceding  nouns,  as  the  camels  of  Midian  and 
Ephah  could  not  come  from  Sheba,  but  with  all  of  than,  which  may  either 
be  indefinite,  'they  (i.e.  men)  shall  come  all  of  them,'  or  more  specifically 
signify  the  merchants  of  Sheba.  Most  interpreters  agree  with  the  Targum 
in  referring  the  last  verb  (ii^?"?)  to  the  men  who  come  with  the  camels  and 
the  gifts  ;  but  as  ^ix"^":  properly  denotes  the  act  of  the  animals  themselves, 
it  is  not  without  a  show  of  reason  that  Vitringa  construes  the  other  verb  in 
the  same  manner,  and  supposes  the  camels  by  their  very  burdens  to  praise 
God  or  rather  to  announce  the  disposition  of  these  tribes  to  praise  him. 
This  is  rendered  still  more  probable  by  the  analogy  of  the  next  verse,  where 
kindred  acts  api)ear  to  be  ascribed  to  other  animals. — It  is  a  common  opin- 
ion of  interj)reters  that  this  verse  represents  the  east  as  joining  in  the  acts 
of  homage  and  of  tribute  which  the  one  before  it  had  ascribed  to  the  west ; 
but  it  may  well  be  doubted  whether  this  distinctive  meaning  can   be  put 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  .  377 

upon  the  terms  sea  and  nations  there  employed,  and  the  antithesis  would 
hardly  be  in  keeping  with  another  which  appears  to  be  designed  between 
these  two  verses  and  the  eighth,  as  will  be  explained  below. 

V.  7.  All  the  flocks  of  Kcdar  shall  be  gathered  for  thee,  the  rams  of 
Nebaioth  shall  minister  to  thee,  they  shall  ascend  with  good-will  (or  accept- 
ably) my  altar,  and  my  house  of  beauty  I  loill  beautify.  To  the  traders  of 
Arabia  with  tlieir  caravans  and  precious  wares  he  now  adds  her  shepherds 
with  their  countless  flocks.  While  Kin)chi  explains  all  as  meaning  many, 
and  Knobel  all  kinds,  Vitriuga  insists  upon  the  strict  sense  as  an  essential 
feature  of  the  prophecy.  Kedar,  tlie  second  son  of  Ishmael  (Gen.  25:  13), 
who  represents  Arabia  in  ch.  21  :  16  and  42  :  11,  is  here  joined  for  the 
same  purpose  with  his  elder  brother  Nebaioth,  obviously  identical  with  the 
Nabataei,  the  name  given  to  the  people  of  Arabia  Petraea  by  Strabo  and 
Diodorus  Siculus,  who  represent  tiiem  as  possessed  of  no  wealth  except 
flocks  and  herds,  in  which  they  were  extremely  rich.  Ezekiel  also  speaks 
of  Tyre  as  trading  with  Arabia  and  all  the  chiefs  of  Kedar  in  lambs  and 
rams  and  goats.  (Ezek.  27  :  21.)  These  are  here  described  as  gathered 
in  one  vast  flock  to  Jerusalem,  or  rather  for  her,  i.  e.  for  her  use  or  service, 
which  agrees  best  with  what  follows,  and  with  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew  pre- 
position. They  are  then,  by  a  bold  and  striking  figure,  represented  as  offer- 
ing themselves,  which  is  first  expressed  by  the  general  term  serve  or  minister, 
and  then  more  unequivocally  by  declaring  that  they  shall  themselves  ascend 
the  altar.  Kimchi  endeavours  to  get  rid  of  this  bold  metaphor  by  intro- 
ducing ivith  before  the  rams  of  Nebaioth  and  referring  both  verbs  to  the  peo- 
ple themselves:  (JVith)  the  rams  of  Nebaioth  shall  they  serve  thee,  atid 
cause  (them)  to  ascend,  etc.  But  the  common  judgment  of  interpreters 
is  in  favour  of  explaining  the  words  strictly,  and  retaining  the  unusual  figure 
unimpaired.  They  are  not  disposed  however  to  go  all  lengths  with  Vitringa, 
who  supposes  the  rams  to  be  personified  as  priests  offering  themselves  upon 
the  altar. — The  ascent  of  the  victim  on  the  altar  is  repeatedly  connected 
elsewhere  with  the  phrase  Ti^";^ ,  to  acceptance  or  acceptably.  (See  above, 
ch.  56  :  7  and  Jer.  6  :  20.)  But  in  this  one  place  we  have  the  phrase 
*i:jn-^y ,  as  if  the  last  noun  had  usurped  the  place  o{  altar,  which  immedi- 
ately follows.  Of  this  unusual  construction  there  are  several  distinct  expla- 
nations. Kimchi  regards  it  as  a  case  of  "iiro  or  metathesis,  which  may  be 
thus  resolved:  "in::-"2  !=:?  •,^:nb  ibri .  Gesenius  obtains  precisely  the  same 
meaning  by  explaining  "'H?'!"?  ^^  ^"  accusative  after  a  verb  of  motion,  and 
making  ")'i:j"^"Vi'  a  simple  variation  of  the  common  j)hrase  Ti^"^'?  .  Ilitzig  and 
Henderson  adopt  the  same  construction,  but  suppose  the  two  phrases  to  be 
different  in  sense  as  well  as  form,  '\'^^~^.  meaning  to  (divine)  acceptance, 
■jiisn-^^'  with  good  will  or  complacency.     The  phrase  then  only  serves  to 


;JT3  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  X . 

streiigilien  the  description  of  the  victims  as  spontaneously  offerinf,^  themselves, 
an  idea  wliich  Lowth  finely,  but  perhaps  too  artificially,  illustrates  hy  cita- 
tions fioui  Suetonius  and  Tacitus,  showing  that  the  ancients  viewed  reluc- 
tance in  the  victims  as  an  evil  omen,  and  l)y  parity  of  reasoning  the  appear- 
ance of  spontaneous  self-devotion  as  a  good  one. — In  the  last  clause  the 
meaning  of  the  i)hrase  "^n-xsn  ri3  is  determined  by  the  parallel  expressions 
in  eh.  64  :  10,  where  the  suffix  necessarily  belongs  to  the  governing  word, 
or  rather  to  the  whole  complex  phrase,  and  the  whole  means,  not  the  house 
of  our  holiness  and  our  henuty,  but  our  house  of  holiness  and  beauti/,  or 
resolved  into  the  occidental  idiom,  our  holy  and  our  beautiful  house,  which 
is  the  common  English  version.  The  LXX  have  here  my  house  of  prayer, 
as  in  ch.  56  :  7  ;  and  Hitzig  regards  this  as  the  genuine  reading,  though  he 
does  not  adopt  it  in  his  German  version.  His  reason  for  this  critical  decision 
is  a  very  insufficient  one,  viz.  that  God  is  nowhere  else  said  to  glory  in  the 
temple,  which  is  not  the  meaning  of  the  common  text,  ri"ixsn  being  here 
used  in  its  primary  and  ordinary  sense  of  beauty,  as  appears  from  its  con- 
junction with  the  verb  "ixa  ,  which,  in  this  connexion,  even  upon  Hiizig's 
own  hypothesis,  must  mean  to  beautify. — Grotius  supposes  this  prediction 
to  have  been  literally  verified  in  Herod's  temple.  Gesenius  and  the  other 
Germans  easily  dispose  of  it  as  a  finatical  anticipation.  It  is  much  more 
embarrassing  to  those  who  make  the  passage  a  prediction  of  the  future  resto- 
ration of  the  Jews  and  the  future  splendour  of  the  literal  Jerusalem.  Some 
of  the  most  intrepid  writers  of  this  class  consistently  apply  their  fundamen- 
tal principle  of  literal  interpretation,  and  believe  that  the  Mosaic  ritual  or 
something  like  it  is  to  be  restor.-d.  But  such  interpreters  as  J.  D.  Michaelis 
and  Henderson,  who  cannot  go  to  this  length,  are  obliged  to  own  that  spi- 
ritual services  are  here  represented  under  forms  and  titles  borrowed  from  the 
old  dispensation.     "  Whatever  the  descendants  of  those  oriental  tribes  may 

possess  shall  be  cheerfully  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  restored  Jews 

There  shall  be  no  want  of  any  thing  that  is  required  for  the  full  restoration 
of  divine  worship,  when  the  mosque  of  Omar  shall  give  pbce  to  a  new 
temple  to  be  erected  for  the  celebration  of  the  services  of  that  ministration 
which  exceedeth  in  glory.  2  Cor.  3  :  8-1 1."  This  is  the  '  literal  interpre- 
tation '  of  a  school  which  will  not  allow  Israel  to  mean  the  church  or  chosen 
people  as  such  considered,  but  insists  upon  its  meaning  the  nation  of  the 
Jews!  The  picture  which  this  interpretation  makes  the  Prophet  draw  may 
well  be  called  a  mixed  one,  consisting  of  a  literal  Jerusalem,  literal  caravans 
and  camels,  but  a  figurative  altar,  figurative  victims,  and  a  material  temple 
to  be  built  upon  the  site  of  the  old  one  for  a  spiritual  worship  exclusive  of 
the  very  rites  which  it  is  hei-e  predicted  shall  be  solemnly  performed  there. 
Of  such  a  figment  upon  such  a  subject  we  may  say,  with  more  than  ordi- 
nary emphasis,  and  even  with  a  double  sense,  Credai  Judatus  apella  !     On 


CHAPTER    LX.  379 

the  other  hand,  the  prophecy  explains  itself  to  those  who  believe  that  the 
ancient  Israel  is  still  in  existence  and  that  the  Jews  as  a  nation  form  no 
part  of  it.  The  charge  of  mystical  or  allegorical  interpretation  does  not  lie 
against  this  view  of  the  matter,  but  against  Vitringa's  needless  and  fantastic 
addition  to  his  real  exegesis  of  a  set  of  riddles  or  enigmas,  in  which  he  puz- 
zles both  his  readers  and  himself  by  attempting  to  determine  whether  camels 
mean  laborious  and  patient  Christians,  rams  strong  ones,  sheep  those  fat- 
tened by  the  word  and  clothed  in  the  white  wool  of  holiness,  etc.  To  any 
but  Vitringa  himself  it  must  be  difficult  to  see  in  what  respect  all  this  is  any 
better  than  the  notion  for  which  he  reproves  Eusebius,  Jerome,  and  Proco- 
pius,  that  camels  here  mean  rich  men,  as  in  l\!atth.  19:24.  And  yet  after 
saying  in  regard  to  these  erring  Fathers,  vitanda  utique  sunt  in  applicatio- 
nibus  myslicis  uD.nycrJi,  he  adds  with  great  complacency,  nostrae  rationeshic 
sunt  liquidae  !  If  any  proof  were  needed  of  the  risk  attending  the  admis- 
sion of  a  false  exegetical  principle,  however  harndess  in  appearance,  it 
would  be  afforded  by  these  melancholy  triflings  on  the  part  of  one  of  the 
most  able,  learned,  orthodox,  devout,  accomplished,  and  with  this  exception 
sensible  interpreters  of  Scripture,  that  the  world  has  ever  seen  or  can  expect 
to  see  again. 

V.  8.  Who  are  these  that  jly  as  a  cloud  and  as  doves  to  their  windows  7 
It  is  a  fine  conception  of  Vitringa,  that  the  ships  expressly  mentioned  in  the 
next  verse  are  here  described  in  their  first  appearance  at  a  distance  resem- 
bling with  their  outspread  sails  and  rapid  course  a  fleecy  cloud  driven  by 
the  wind,  and  a  flight  of  doves  returning  to  their  young.  Both  comparisons 
are  elsewhere  used  as  here  to  indicate  rapidity  of  motion.  (Job  30  :  15.  Ps. 
55:7.  Hos.  11  :  11.  Jer.  4:  13.)  Mucii  less  felicitous  is  Vitringa's  idea 
that  the  imaije  here  presented  is  that  of  a  prophetic  chorus  standing  with 
the  church  on  the  roof  of  the  city,  and  asked  by  her,  or  asking,  what  it  is 
they  see  approaching.  Houbiganl's  emendation  of  the  text  by  reading 
Dni.n-i::x  ,  though  approved  by  Lowth  and  even  improved  by  the  change  of 
bx  to  b^  on  the  authority  of  more  than  forty  manuscripts,  so  as  to  admit  of 
the  translation  like  doves  upon  the  iving,  is  justly  characterized  by  Gesenius 
as  an  "'elende  Coiijectur."  The  common  text  means  lattices  or  latticed  loin- 
dows,  cither  of  which  is  better  than  Henderson's  translation  holes,  though 
even  this  is  preferable  to  the  vague  and  weak  term  habitations  used  by 
Noyes. 

V.  9.  Because  for  me  the  isles  are  waiting  (or  must  wait),  and  the 
ships  of  Tarshish  in  the  first  place,  to  bring  thy  sons  from  far,  their  silver 
and  their  gold  ivith  them,  for  the  name  of  Jehovah  thy  God,  and  for  the 
Holy  One  of  Israel,  because  he  has  glorified  thee.     This  verse  contains  a 


380  CHAPTER    LX. 

virtual  though  not  a  formal  answer  to  the  question  in  the  one  before  it. 
As  if  he  had  said,  Wonder  not  that  these  are  seen  approaching,  for  the 
whole  world  is  only  awaiting  my  command  to  bring  thy  sons,  etc.  This 
view  of  the  connexion  makes  it  wholly  unnecessary  to  give  ^3  the  sense 
of  surely,  yes,  or  any  other  than  its  usual  and  proper  one  of /or,  because. 
For  the  true  sense  of  "^1^7,  see  above  on  ch.  42:  4,  and  for  ships  of 
Tarshish,  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  405.  Luzzatto  here  gratuitously  reads 
ni;37  let  them  be  gathered,  which  is  applied  to  a  confluence  of  nations  in 
Jer.  3:17.  The  Septuagint,  which  elsewhere  explains  Tarshish  to 
mean  the  sea,  here  retains  the  name ;  but  the  Vulgate  even  here  has  naves 
maris.  .1.  D.  Michaelis,  the  ships  of  Spain.  Jarchi  and  Kimchi  supply  s 
before  nicxnn  ,  and  explain  it  to  mean  as  at  first,  or  as  of  old,  referring  to 
the  days  of  Solomon  and  Hiram.  This  reading  is  actually  found  in  twenty- 
five  manuscripts,  and  sanctioned  by  the  Peshito  ;  but  even  Lowth  retains 
the  common  text.  The  Hebrew  phrase  is  generally  understood  to  mean  in 
the  first  rank  either  as  to  time  or  place.  (Compare  Num.  10:  13,  14.) 
Both  may  be  included,  as  they  really  imply  one  another.  The  pronoun 
their  may  have  for  its  antecedent  either  sons  or  islands ;  but  the  former,  as 
the  nearer,  is  more  natural.  The  last  clause  is  repeated  from  ch.  55  :  5, 
where  )S^h  takes  the  place  of  the  first  h  and  determines  it  to  mean  not  to 
but  ybr.  There  is  no  need  therefore  of  explaining  7iame  to  mean  the  place 
where  the  divine  name  was  recorded.  J.  D.  Michaelis  still  declines  to  say 
in  what  precise  form  this  prediction  is  to  be  fulfilled  ;  but  Henderson,  less 
cautious  or  more  confident,  affirms  that  the  property  of  the  Jews  as  well  as 
themselves  shall  be  conveyed  free  of  charge  to  Palestine,  adding  that  many 
of  them  resident  in  distant  parts  can  only  conveniently  return  by  sea.  The 
principle  involved  in  this  interpretation  is,  that  we  have  no  right  to  make 
the  Zion  here  addressed  any  other  than  the  literal  Jerusalem,  or  the  ships, 
the  silver,  and  the  gold,  any  other  than  literal  silver,  gold,  and  ships.  This 
rule  to  be  of  any  practical  avail  must  apply  to  all  ])arts  of  the  passage,  and 
especially  to  all  parts  of  the  verse  alike,  without  which  uniformity  interpre- 
tation becomes  wholly  arbitrary  or  mere  guess-work.  It  is  an  interesting 
question,  therefore,  what  we  are  to  understand  in  this  connexion  by  the  ships 
of  Tarshish,  to  which  such  extraordinary  prominence  is  given  in  the  work 
of  restoration.  As  to  this  point,  Henderson  refers  us  to  his  note  on  ch. 
23  :  10,  where  we  read  as  follows  :  "  By  Tarshish  there  can  no  longer  be 
any  reasonable  doubt  we  are  to  understand  Tartessus,  the  ancient  and 
celebrated  emporium  of  the  Phenicians,  situated  between  the  two  mouths 
of  the  river  Bactis  (now  Guadalquiver)  on  the  south-western  coast  of  Spain." 
Are  we  to  understand  then  that  the  vessels  of  this  part  of  Spain  are  to  be 
foremost  in  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  to  Palestine,  just  as  the  descendants 
of  the  ancient  Kedar,  Ephah,  and  Sheba,  are  to  place  their  possessions  at 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    LX.  381 

the  disposal  of  the  restored  Jews  ?  If  so,  this  meaning  should  have  been 
distinctly  stated,  as  it  partly  is  by  Michaelis  in  translating  Tarshish  S])(mi. 
If  not,  and  if  as  we  suspect  the  ships  of  Tarshish  are  secretly  identified  with 
the  commercial  navy  of  Great  Britain  and  perhaps  America,  we  then  have 
another  medley  like  that  in  v.  7,  but  in  this  case  consisting  of  a  literal 
return  to  the  literal  Jerusalem  in  literal  ships  but  belonging  to  a  figurative 
Tarshish.  In  these  repeated  instances  of  mixed  interpretation  there  is 
something  like  a  vacillancy  between  the  literal  and  the  spiritual,  which  is 
any  thing  but  satisfactory.  To  the  assumption  that  commercial  intercourse 
and  navigation  are  here  represented  under  forms  and  names  derived  from 
the  Old  Testament  history,  I  am  so  far  from  objecting,  that  I  wish  to  apply 
it  to  the  whole  prediction,  and  to  use  precisely  the  same  liberty  in  under- 
standing what  is  said  of  Zion  and  her  sons,  as  in  understanding  what  is  said 
of  Tarshish  and  her  ships.  Let  it  also  be  added  to  the  cumulative  proofs 
already  urged  in  favour  of  our  own  hypothesis,  that  here,  as  in  so  many 
former  instances,  the  writer  does  not  even  accidentally  use  any  term  expli- 
citly denoting  restoration  or  return,  but  only  such  as  are  appropriate  to  mere 
accession  and  increase  ab  extra.  It  cannot  therefore  be  absurd,  even  if  it 
is  erroneous,  to  apply  what  is  here  said,  with  Vitringa,  to  the  growth  of  the 
true  Israel  or  chosen  people  by  the  calling  of  the  gentiles,  with  particular 
allusion  to  the  wealth  of  the  commercial  nations,  from  amonp-  whom  the 
elect  of  God,  the  sons  of  Zion,  when  they  come  to  the  embraces  of  their 
unknown  mother,  shall  come  bringing  their  silver  and  gold  with  them. 

V.  10.  And  strangers  shall  build  thy  walls,  and  their  kings  shall  serve 
thee  ;  for  in  my  wrath  I  smote  thee,  and  in  my  favour  I  have  had  mercy  on 
thee.  For  the  true  sense  of  the  phrase  "'^.r"'.?^ ,  see  above,  on  ch.  56  :  3  ; 
and  with  the  last  clause  compare  ch.  54  :  7,  8.  The  "^3  relates  to  the  whole 
of  that  clause  taken  together,  not  to  the  first  member  by  itself.  It  was  not 
because  God  had  been  angry,  but  because  he  had  been  angry  and  relented, 
that  they  were  to  be  thus  favoured.  (See  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  238.) 
There  is  no  need,  however,  of  substituting  an  involved  occidental  syntax  for 
the  simple  Hebrew  construction,  as  Vitringa  and  Rosenmiiller  do,  by  reading, 
'  for  although  in  my  wrath  I  may  have  smitten  thee,  etc'  The  English  ver- 
sion of  the  last  verb  in  the  sentence  is  correct.  Lowth's  emendation  of  it, 
in  which  he  is  followed  by  Henderson  and  Noyes,  is  wholly  ungrammatical, 
since  the  preceding  verb  is  not  a  future  but  a  preterite.  The  change  is 
also  needless,  since  the  mercy  is  described  as  past,  not  in  reference  to  the 
date  of  the  prediction,  but  of  its  fulfilment.  There  is  something  at  once 
inexact  and  mawkish  in  Lowth's  paraphrase  of  this  verb,  /  will  embrace 
thee  with  the  most  tender  affection.  If  any  departure  from  the  usual  trans- 
lation were  required  or  admissible,  the  preference  would  be  due  to  Ewald's 


38->  C  II  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  . 

version  (licb  ich  dich  wiedcr). — Eiclihori-!  supposed  ilic  expectation  here 
expressed  to  have  been  excited  by  the  benefactions  of  the  Persian  kings  to 
the  restored  Jews  (Ezra  1  :  8.  6  :  8,  9)  ;  but  even  Gesenius  regards  the 
date  thus  assi;;iied  to  tlie  prediction  as  too  kite.  Knobel  applies  the  text 
to  the  neii^hbouring  heathen,  called  "fr''^^  by  Nehciniah  (ch.  9:  2.  comp. 
Ps.  18  :  45.  Ill  :  7,  II),  who  were  to  be  driven  from  the  lands  upon 
which  they  had  intruded  during  the  captivity,  and  reduced  to  bondage  by 
the  restored  Jews.  Henderson's  explanation  of  the  verse  as  meaning  that 
foreigners  shall  count  it  an  honour  to  be  employed  in  rebuilding  Jerusalem 
and  '•  in  any  way  contributing  to  the  recovery  of  the  lost  happiness  of 
Israel,  and  that  even  monarchs  shall  regaid  it  as  a  privilege  to  aid  in  the 
work  by  employing  whatever  legitimate  influence  they  may  possess  in 
advancing  it,"  is  hardly  a  fair  specimen  of  strictly  literal  interpretation,  but 
rather  an  insensible  approximation  to  the  old  opinion,  as  expressed  by 
Vitrin'fa,  that  the  Prophet  here  foretells  the  agency  of  strangers  or  new  con- 
verts in  promoting  the  safety  and  prosperity  of  Israel,  under  figures  borrowed 
from  the  old  economy,  and  implying  a  vicissitude  or  alternation  of  distress 
and  joy,  such  as  Isaiah  frequently  exhibits.  The  building  of  the  walls  here 
mentioned  is  the  same  as  that  in  Ps.  51  :  20  and  147  :  2,  where  it  is  no 
more  to  be  literally  understood  than  the  captivity  of  Zion  in  Ps.  14  :  7  or 
that  of  Job  in  ch.  42  :  10.  (See  Hengstenberg  on  the  Psalms,  Vol.  I. 
p.  291.) 

V.  11.  And  thy  gates  shall  be  open  confinually,  day  and  night  they 
shall  not  bt  shut,  to  bring  info  thee  the  strength  of  nations  and  their 
Jcings  led  (captive  or  in  trinrnj)!')-  According  to  Hitzig  there  is  here  a 
resumption  of  the  figures  in  v.  6,  and  the  gates  are  represented  as  kept  open 
day  and  night  by  the  perpetual  influx  of  Arabian  caravans.  But  without 
going  back  to  the  peculiar  imageiy  of  that  verse,  we  may  understand  the 
one  before  us  as  relating  to  the  influx  of  strangers  and  nev/  converts  gene- 
rally. The  two  ideas  expressed  are  those  of  unobstructed  access  and  undis- 
turbed tranquillity.  The  use  of  ^nno  is  the  same  as  in  ch.  48  :  8,  nearly 
but  not  entirely  coincident  with  that  of  the  corresponding  verb  in  English; 
when  we  speak  of  a  door's  opening  instead  of  being  opened.  The  difference 
is  simply  that  between  the  description  of  a  momentary  act  and  of  a  perma- 
nent condition.  The  intransitive  construction  is  in  either  case  the  same. 
Upon  this  verse,  perhaps  combined  with  Zech.  14  :  7,  is  founded  that  beau- 
tiful and  grand  description,  the  gates  of  it  shall  not  be  shut  at  all  by  day, 
for  (here  shall  be  no  night  there  (Rev.  21  :  25),  of  which  Vitringa  speaks 
as  an  inspired  exposition  of  the  verse  before  us,  while  Henderson  says  more 
correctly  that  the  Apostle  "borrows  the  language  in  his  description  of  the 
New  Jerusalem." — ^"'n  has  the  same  ambiguity  or  latitude  of  meaning  as 


C  H  A  P  T  E  11    L  X .  383 

in  V.  5,  above.     The  sense  of  wealth  or  treasure  is  preferred  hy  most  of  the 
late  writers,  but  Ilosenniuller  has  excrcilus.     Belter  than   either,   beeausi? 
comprehending  both,   is   Vilringa's   version    cop'ia,    to   w  hieh    we  have   no 
exact  equivalent  in  English. — Vitringa  and   Rosenniiiller  follow  Kinichi  in 
explaining  c^iin:  lo  mean  escorted,  led  in  procession,  or.  as  Lowili  has  it, 
pompously  aitendtd,  which  they  take  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  verb  in  i\ah. 
2  :  8.     But  as  that  place  is  itself  obscure  and  doubtful,  and  as  the  verb  is 
clearly  employed  elsewhere  to  express  the  act  of  leading  captive  (ch.  20:  4. 
1  Sam.  30  :  2),  several  of  the  later  writers  have  reverted  to  this  explanation, 
which  is  also  gii'en  in  the  Targum   ("rp^P])   and  by  A  ben  Ezra,  and  agrees 
well  with  ch.  45:  14  (compare  Ps.  149:  ^).     Gesenius  in  his  Commentary 
charges  Koppe  with  omitting  to  observe  that  this  sense  is  at  variance  with 
the  idea  of  voluntary  adhesion  expressed  throughout  the  context;   but  in  his 
Thesaurus  he  adopts  this  very  explanation,  without  attempting  lo  refute  his 
own  objection.     Hitzig's  solution  of  it  is  that  the  nations  are  described  as 
coming  to  Jerusalem  tn  masse,  and   bringing  their  reluctant  kings  in  chains 
along  with  them.     Knobel  proposes  an  entirely  new  explanation,  in  which 
D'^aws  is  to  have  an  active  meaning  (like  ii^ip^  and  Tins),  and  to  be  trans- 
lated leaders  ;  but  if  ever  the  invention  of  a  new  sense  was  without  the  faint- 
est colour  of  necessity,  it  is  so  here.     The  geneial  meaning  no  doubt  is  that 
earthly  sovereigns  must  unite  in  this  adhesion  to  the  true  religion,  either  wil- 
lingly or  by  compulsion.     The  diflerent  impressions  made  by  such  a  passage 
on  intelligent  interpreters,  according  to  their  several  hypotheses  or  previous 
conclusions,  may  be  shown   by  comparing  the  remarks  of  Henderson   and 
Umbreit  upon  this   verse.     While  the  latter  confidently  asks  who  can  here 
fail   to  read   tlie  daily  progress  of  God's   kingdom   by   accretion   from   the 
gentiles,  in  which  sense  the  doors  of  Zion   are  still  open,  kings  and  nations 
streaming  in  by  day  and  night,  the  other  gravely  observes  that  "modern 
travellers  greatly  con)plain  of  the  inconvenience  to  which  they  are  put,  when 
they  do  not  reach  Jerusalem   before  the  gates  are  closed."     This  is  either 
nothing  to  the  purpose  or  implies  that  the  blessing  piomised  in   the  text  is 
a  more  convenient  regulation  of  the  gate-police  after  the  restoration  of  the 
Jews. 

V.  12.  For  the  nation  and  the  kingdom  which  will  not  serve  thee  shall 
perish,  and.  the  nations  shall  be  desolated,  desolated.  Similar  threatenin^s 
are  found  in  Zechariah  10  :  1,  12  :  1,  and  14  :  17,  in  the  last  of  which 
places  there  is  a  specific  threat  of  drought,  as  the  appointed  punishment. 
This  has  led  Hitzig  and  some  later  writers  to  explain  the  last  verb  here  as 
meaning  to  be  utterly  dried  u[)  or  parched.  But  in  ch.  37  :  IS,  above,  it  is 
applied  to  nations  in  the  general  sense  of  desolation.  The  for  at  the 
beginning  of  the  verse  is  commonly  explained  as  introducing  a  reason  for 


334  C  II  A  P  T  E  R    L  X. 

the  confl'jence  of  strangers  just  before  predicted,  namely,  the  desire  of 
escaping  tliis  destruction  ;  but  it  may  as  well  be  understood  to  give  a  reason 
for  the  promise  of  increase  in  general.  The  gates  of  Zion  shall  be  crowded, 
because  all  shall  enter  into  them  but  those  who  are  to  perish.  The  nations 
in  the  last  clause  may  mean  tiie  nations  just  described,  or,  as  the  common 
version  expresses  it.  those  nations.  But  it  may  also  mean,  perhaps  more 
naturally,  those  who  still  continue  to  be  gentiles,  heathen,  by  refusing  to 
unite  themselves  with  Israel. — The  threatening  in  this  verse  is  a  very  seri- 
ous one,  however  understood  ;  but  it  is  also  very  strange  and  unaccountable 
if  understood  as  meaning  that  all  nations  shall  be  utterly  destroyed  which 
will  not  serve  the  Jews  when  restored  to  their  own  country.  Even  if  we 
give  to  serve  the  mitigated  sense  of  showing  favour  and  assisting,  there  is 
still  something  almost  revolting  in  the  penalty  annexed  to  the  omission  ; 
how  much  more  if  we  understand  it  as  denoting  actual  subjection  and  hard 
bondage.  It  is  no  wonder  that  a  writer  so  acute  as  Henderson  is  forced  by 
the  pressure  of  this  difficulty  on  his  theory  to  seek  for  a  "raeiosis"  in  the 
sentence,  and  to  understand  the  threatening  as  directed  only  against  those 
who  are  chargeable  with  "  positive  hostility,"  a  forced  assumption  not  to  be 
supported  by  a  reference  to  Judges  5  :  23.  The  whole  is  rendered  clear 
by  the  assumption,  not  got  up  for  the  occasion,  but  resulting  from  an  exten- 
sive exegetical  induction,  that  the  threatening  was  intended  to  apply,  in  its 
most  obvious  and  strongest  sense,  to  all  those  nations  which  refuse  to  be 
connected  with  the  church  or  Israel  of  God. 

V.  13.  The  glory  of  Lebanon  to  thee  shall  come,  cypress,  plane,  and 
box  together,  to  adorn  the  place  of  my  sanctuary,  and  the  place  of  my  feet 
1  will  honour.  Tlie  glory  of  Lebanon  is  its  cedars.  For  the  other  trees 
here  mentioned,  see  above,  on  ch.  41  :  19,  where,  as  here,  they  are  merely 
representatives  of  ornamental  forest-trees  in  general.  The  place  of  my 
sanctuary  has  been  generally  understood  to  mean  the  sanctuary  itself;  but 
several  of  the  latest  writers  understand  by  it  Jerusalem,  as  being  the  place 
where  the  temple  was  erected.  The  same  sense  is  put  by  Maurer  and 
others  on  the  place  of  my  feet,  that  is,  the  place  where  I  habitually  stand 
or  walk.  (Ezek.  43  :  7.)  Vitringa  and  the  older  writers  generally  seem 
to  understand  by  it  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  considered  as  the  footstool  of 
Jehovah  (I  Chron.  28  :  2.  Ps.  99  :  5.  132  :  7)  when  enthroned  between 
the  cherubim  (ch.  37  :  16.  Ps.  80  :  2).  In  favour  of  the  wider  sense  is 
the  analogy  of  ch.  QG  :  2,  where  the  same  description  is  applied  to  the 
whole  earth,  but  in  reference  to  heaven  as  the  throne  of  God. — Another 
topic  upon  which  interpreters  have  been  divided,  is  the  question  whether 
the  adorning  mentioned  here  is  that  of  cultivated  grounds  by  living  trees, 
or  that  of  buildings  by  the  use  of  the  choicest  kinds  of  timber.     The  latter 


CHAPTERLX.  385 

opinion  has  most  commonly  prevailed  ;  but    Hitzig,   Ewald,  and   Knobel, 
are  decidedly  in  favour  of  the  other,  which  is  far  more  pleasing  in  itself  and 
more  in  keeping  with  the  poetical  tone  of  the  whole  context.    In  either  case 
the  meaning  of  the  figure  is  that  the  earthly   residence  of  God  shall  be 
invested  with  the  most  attractive  forms  of  beauty.    Even  Grotius,  as  Vitringa 
has  observed,  was  ashamed  to  rest  in  the  material  sense  of  this  description, 
and  has  made  it  so  far  tropical  as  to  denote  the  conquest  of  many  parts  of 
Syria   by   the   Jews.      But    Henderson    goes  back    to  ground    which  even 
Grotius  could  not  occupy,  and  understands   the  verse  not  only  of  material 
trees  but  of  material  timber.     "  A  literal  temple  or  house  of  worship  being 
intended,  the  language  must  be  literally  understood. ^^     But  why  are  literal 
trees  more  indispensable  in  this  case  than  literal  sheep  and  rams  and  a  literal 
altar  in  v.  7,  or  than  literal  ships  of  Tarshish  in  v.  9  ?    This  perpetual  vacil- 
lancy  between  the  literal  and  the   spiritual   is  any  thing  but  satisfactory. 
"  From  all  that  appears  to  be  the  state  of  Palestine  in  regard  to  wood,  sup- 
plies from  Lebanon  will  be  as  necessary  as  they  were  when  the  ancient  temple 
was  constructed,"     With   this  may  be  worthily  compared   the   use  of  the 
same  text  to  justify  the  'dressing  of  churches'  at  the  festival  of  Christmas- 

V.  14.    Then  shall  come  to  thee  bending  the  sons  of  thy  oppressors,  then 
shall  how  down  to  the  soles  of  thy  feet  all  thy  dcsjyiscrs,  and  shall  call  thee 
the  City  of  Jehovah,  Zion  the  holy  place  of  Israel  (or  the  Zion  of  the  Holy 
One  of  Israel).    For  the  sanje  ideas  and  expressions,  see  above,  ch.  45  :  14 
and   49  :  23.     The   Vj    before   nias   is    not   simply    equivalent  to    at,   but 
expresses  downward   motion,   and    may   be  translated  doivn    to.     The  act 
described  is  the  oriental  prostration   as  a  sign  of  ihe   profoundest  reverence. 
The   Vulgate  makes     he  sense  still  stronger,  and   indeed    too   strong,  by 
attaching  to  the  verb  a  religious  meaning,  and  regarding  niQ?  as  its  object 
(^adorabunt  vestigia  pedum  tuoruin).    The  sons  are  mentioned  either  for  the 
purpose  of  contrasting  the  successive  generations  more  emphatically,  or  as  a 
mere  oriental  idiom  without  distinctive  meaning.      In   favour  of  the  latter 
supposition  is  the  circumstance  that  it  is  wanting  in  the  other  clause,  where 
the  despisers  are  themselves  represented  as  doing  the  same  thing  with  the 
sons  of  the  oppressors,     yxa  means  not  only  to  despise  in  heart  but  to  treat 
with  contempt.    These  humbled  enemies  are  represented  as  acknowledging 
the  claim  of  Zion  to  be  recognised  as  the  holy  place  and  dwelling  of  Jeho- 
vah.    The  old  construction  of  the  last  words,  the  Zion  of  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel,  supposes  Zion  as  a  proper  name  to  govern  the  next  word,  contrary 
to   the  general   rule,   but  after  the  analogy  of  such  combinations  as  Beth- 
lehem of  Judah  and  Jehovah  of  Hosts.      Hitzig   prefers  to  make   l"i'5?  an 
appellative  synonymous  witli  ']i''5: ,  the  pillar  of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel. 
Maurer  more  plausibly  suggests  that  tDinp  here  me.ms  not  a  holy  person  but 

25 


386  CHAPTER    LX. 

a  holy  or  consecrated   place,  ns  in  cli.  57  :  15.   Ps.  46  :  5.  65  :  5.     On 

any  of  these  suppositions,  the  sense  of  the  acknowledgment  remains  the 
same.  That  sense  is  determined  by  the  parallel  passage  ch.  45  :  14, 
where  a  part  of  the  confession  is  in  these  words,  oidy  in  thee  is  God. 
(See  above,  p.  118.)  The  same  sense  must  here  be  attached  to  the  acknow- 
ledgment of  Zion  as  the  City  of  Jehovah,  in  order  to  explain  or  justify  the 
strength  of  the  expressions  put  into  the  mouth  of  her  repentant  enemies. 
The  old  Jerusalem  was  not  merely  a  holy  place,  a  city  of  Jehovah,  but  the 
holy  place,  the  city  of  Jehovah.  Its  exclusive  possession  of  this  character 
was  perfectly  essential,  and  is  always  so  described  in  Scripture.  Are  we  to 
understand,  then,  that  Jerusalem,  when  rebuilt  and  enlarged  hereafter,  is 
again  to  be  invested  with  its  old  monopoly  of  spiritual  privileges?  If  it  is, 
how  can  such  a  restoration  of  the  old  economy  be  reconciled  with  the  New 
Testament  doctrines  ?  If  it  is  not,  why  are  these  repentant  enemies  described 
as  rendering  precisely  the  same  homage  to  the  New  Jerusalem,  which 
properly  belonged  to  the  old  ?  If  this  is  a  mere  figure  for  deep  reverence 
and  so  forth,  what  becomes  of  the  principle  of  literal  interpretation  ?  Whether 
these  questions  are  of  any  exegetical  importance,  and  if  so,  whether  they 
are  satisfactorily  solved  by  Henderson's  interpretation  of  the  verse  as 
meaning  that  "  the  descendants  of  her  oppressors  will  acknowledge  the 
wrongs  that  have  been  done  to  her,  and  humbly  crave  a  share  in  her  privi- 
leges," is  left  to  the  decision  of  the  reader.  On  the  supposition  hitherto 
assumed  as  the  basis  of  the  exposition,  this  verse  simply  means  that  the 
enemies  of  the  Church  shall  recognise  her  in  her  true  relation  to  her  divine 
Head. 

V.  15.  Instead  of  thy  being  forsaken  and  hated  and  with  none  passing 
(through  thee),  and  I  will  place  thee  for  a  boast  of  perpetuity,  a  joy  of  age 
and  age.  The  rnn  may  express  either  simj)ly  a  change  of  condition 
(whereas),  or  the  reason  of  the  change  (because),  or  the  further  idea  of 
equitable  compensation.  Uitzlg  su[)j!0ses  an  allusion  in  rN>i:b  to  the  use  of 
the  same  word  in  the  law  with  respect  to  a  less  beloved  wife  (Gen.  29  :  31. 
Deut.  21  :  15).  But  in  the  phrase  "i^ii"  'pN  the  personification  seems 
entirely  merged  in  the  idea  of  a  city.  The  i  at  the  beginning  of  the  second 
clause  is  commonly  regarded  as  the  sign  of  the  apodosis,  and  as  such  can- 
not be  expressed  in  English.  It  may  however  have  its  usual  copulative 
meaning  if  the  first  clause  be  connected  with  the  foregoing  verse  as  a  part 
of  the  same  sentence.  In  either  case  the  i  must  at  the  same  time  be  conver- 
sive  and  connect  the  verb  with  those  of  the  preceding  verse,  or  else  it  must 
be  taken  as  a  praeler  like  "'P^fl"!  in  v.  10.  In  order  probably  to  make  the 
application  of  the  verse  to  the  material  Jerusalem  more  natural,  Henderson 
observes  that  cbis  is  here  used,  as  in  many  other  places,  for  a  period  of  long 


CHAPTER    LX.  387 

and  unknown  duration.  As  this  is  certainly  the  primitive  meaning  of  the 
word,  it  is  often  so  applied,  and  yet  it  may  be  noted  that  according  to  the 
true  interpretation  of  the  prophecy,  this  expression  may  be  taken  in  its 
utmost  strength  and  latitude  of  meaning. 

V.  16.  And  thou  shall  sucJc  the  milk  of  nations,  and  the  breast  of  kings 
shah  thou  suck,  and  thou  shalt  know  that  I,  Jehovah,  am  thy  saviour,  and 
(that)  thy  redeemer  (is)  the  Mighty  One  of  Jacob.  All  interpreters  agree 
with  the  Targum  in  applying  this  verse  to  the  influx  of  wealth  and  power 
and  whatever  else  the  kings  and  nations  of  the  earth  can  contribute  to  the 
progress  of  the  true  religion.  The  figure  is  derived  from  Deut.  33  :  19, 
they  shall  suck  the  abundance  of  the  seas.  Tii  cannot  here  mean  desolation, 
as  above  in  ch.  59  :  7  and  below  in  v.  18,  but  must  be  a  variation  of  the 
usual  form  ""IJ  as  in  Job  24  :  9.  The  catachresis  in  the  second  clause  is 
not  a  mere  rhetorical  blunder,  but  as  Hitzig  vv'ell  says,  an  example  of  the 
sense  overmastering  the  style,  a  license  the  occasional  use  of  which  is  cha- 
racteristic of  a  bold  and  energetic  writer.  It  also  serves  the  useful  purpose 
of  showing  how  purely  tropical  the  language  is.  Lowth  and  Noyes  gratu- 
itously try  to  mitigate  the  harshness  of  the  metaphor  by  changing  the  second 
suck  \nto  fostered  at  and  nursed  from  the  breast  of  kings.  Vitringa  speaks 
of  some  as  attempting  to  remove  the  solecism  altogether  by  making  A;?/7^s 
mean  queens  or  the  daughters  of  kings,  or  by  appealing  to  extraordinary 
cases  in  which  males  have  given  suck  !  The  construction  of  the  last  clause 
is  the  one  expressed  by  INoyes.  Each  member  of  that  clause  contains  a 
subject  and  a  predicate,  and  therefore  a  complete  proposition.  The  sense 
is  not  merely  that  Jehovah  is  the  Mighty  One  of  Jacob,  but  that  the  Mighty 
God  of  Jacob  is  Israel's  redeemer,  and  the  self-existent  everlasting  God  his 
saviour.  Here,  as  in  ch.  1  :  24,  Henderson  translates  T'^^^  protector ;  but 
see  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  1 8. 

V.  17.  Instead  of  brass  (or  copper)  I  will  bring  gold,  and  instead  of 
iron  I  will  bring  silver,  and  instead,  of  wood  brass,  and  instead  of  stones  iron, 
and  I  ivill  place  (or  make)  thy  government  peace  and  thy  rulers  righteous- 
ness. Grotius  follows  the  Targum  in  explaining  the  first  clause  as  a  promise 
of  ample  compensation  for  preceding  losses.  As  if  he  had  said,  'for  the 
brass  which  thy  enemies  have  taken  from  thee  I  will  bring  thee  gold,'  etc. 
Knobel,  on  the  contrary,  understands  the  clause  as  meaning  that  the  value 
of  the  precious  metals  shall  be  lowered  by  their  great  abundance.  Hender- 
son likewise  understands  it  as  a  promise  that  "  the  temporal  prosperity  of 
the  restored  Israelites  shall  resemble  that  of  their  ancestors  in  the  days  of 
Solomon."  (See  1  Kings  TO  :  27.  2  Clir.  9  :  20,  27.)  J3ut  the  thought 
which  is  naturally  suggested  by  the  words  is  that  expressed  by  Vitringa, 


3S8  CHAPTER    LX. 

namely,  that  all  things  shall  be  changed  for  the  better.  The  change 
described  is  not  a  change  in  kind,  i.  e.  from  bad  to  good,  but  in  degree,  i.  e. 
from  good  to  belter ;  because  the  same  things  which  appear  to  be  rejected 
in  the  first  clause  are  expressly  promised  in  the  second.  The  arrangement 
of  the  items  Vitringa  endeavours  to  explain  as  havin/;  reference  to  the  out- 
ward appearance  of  the  substances,  those  being  put  together  which  are  most 
alike.     See  a  similar  gradation  in  ch.  30 :  26.  Zech.  14  :  20.   1  Cor.  3  :  12. 

15  :  41. The  last  clause  resolves  the  figures  into  literal  expressions,  and 

thus  shows  that  the  promise  has  respect  not  to  money  but  to  moral  advan- 
tac^es.  ~nps  properly  means  office,  magistracy,  government,  here  put  for 
those  who  exercise  it,  like  nobility,  ministry,  and  other  terms  in  English. 
(Compare  Ezek.  9  :  1.  2  Kings  11  :  18.)  a^-:??,  which  has  commonly  a 
bad  sense,  is  here  used  for  magistrates  or  rulers  in  general,  for  the  purpose 
of  suggesting  that  instead  of  tyrants  or  exactors  they  should  now  be  under 
equitable  government.  The  two  parallel  expressions  Henderson  decides  to 
signify  the  temporal  and  spiritual  chiefs  of  the  restored  Jewish  community, 
without  assigning  any  ground  for  the  alleged  distinction.  There  is  much 
more  force  in  his  remark  that  the  similarity  of  structure  between  this  verse 
and  ch.  3  :  24  corroborates  the  genuineness  of  these  later  prophecies.  Koppe's 
explanation  of  the  last  clause  as  meaning,  •'  I  will  change  thy  punishment 
into  peace  and  thy  afflictions  into  blessing,'  is  justly  represented  by  Gesenius 
as  arbitrary. 

V.  18.  There  shall  no  more  be  heard  violence  in  thy  land,  desolation 
and  ruin  in  thy  borders  (or  within  thy  bounds)  ;  and  thou  shalt  call  salvation 
thy  walls,  and  thy  gates  praise.  According  to  Vitringa  o^:"  was  the  cry  for 
help  usually  uttered  in  case  of  personal  violence.  (See  Job  19:7.  Jer. 
20  :  8.)  But  there  is  no  need  of  departing  from  ihe  strict  sense  of  violence 
itself,  which  shall  never  more  be  heard  of.  He  also  distinguishes  TiJ  and 
-in©  as  relating  severally  to  lands  and  houses.  The  most  natural  explana- 
tion of  the  last  clause  is  that  which  makes  it  mean  that  the  walls  shall  afford 
safety  (ch.  26  :  1)  and  the  gates  occasion  of  praise.  Henderson's  explana- 
tion, that  the  gates  shall  resound  with  praise,  does  not  agree  well  with  the 
parallel.  Some  understand  by  praise  the  praise  of  God  for  her  continued 
safety  ;  others  the  praise  or  fame  of  her  defences,  considered  either  as  aris- 
ing from  victorious  resistance  to  assault,  or  as  preventing  it.  For  n^nri  the 
Septuagint  has  ylvfifiu  sculpture,  and  for  rxn^  the  Vulgate  occupabit.  Thou 
shalt  call,  as  in  many  other  cases,  means,  thou  shalt  have  a  right  and  reason 
so  to  call  them.     With  this  verse  compare  ch.  65  :  19-25. 

V.  19.  No  more  shall  be  to  thee  the  sun  Jor  a  light  by  day,  and  for 
brightness  ihe  moon  shall  not  shine  to  thee,  and  Jehovah  shall  become  thy 


CHAPTER    LX.  389 

everlasting  light,  and  thy  God  thy  glory.  The  h  before  t^sb  is  neglected  by 
the  ancient  versions,  and  Hitzig  in  like  manner  makes  it  a  sign  of  the  nomi- 
native absolute,  as  for  the  brightness  of  the  moon,  etc.  (See  above,  ch. 
32  :  1,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  534.)  But  the  rnasoretic  accents 
j-equire  rtjbb  to  be  construed  separately  as  meaning  with  its  light  (Gesenius),  or 
for  light  (English  Version).  Some  regard  this  merely  as  a  figurative  promise 
of  prosperity,  of  which  light  is  a  natural  and  common  emblem.  Others 
understand  it  as  a  promise  of  God's  residence  among  his  people,  clothed  in 
such  transcendent  brightness  as  to  make  the  light  of  the  sun  and  the  moon 
useless.  The  true  sense  of  the  figures  seems  to  be  that  all  natural  sources 
of  illumination  shall  be  swallowed  up  in  the  clear  manifestation  of  the  pre- 
sence, power,  and  will  of  God,  According  to  Henderson,  this  verse  and  the 
next  depict  the  superlative  degree  of  happiness  which  shall  be  enjoyed  by 
the  new  and  holy  Jerusalem  church,  expressed  in  language  of  the  most 
sublime  imagery,  Wliy  we  are  thus  more  at  liberty  to  treat  the  sun  and 
moon  of  this  passage  as  mere  "imagery,"  while  the  trees  of  v.  13  "must  be 
literally  explained  "  as  meaning  timber,  we  are  not  informed. — With  this 
verse  compare  Rev.  21  :  23.  22  :  5. — Lowth  and  J.  D.  Michaelis  need- 
lessly insert  by  night,  on  the  authority  of  the  ancient  versions,  which  prove 
zaothing,  however,  as  to  a  difference  of  text.  The  occasional  violation  of 
the  exact  parallelism  is  not  so  much  a  blemish  as  a  beauty. 

V.  20-  Thy  sun  shall  set  no  more,  and  thy  rnoon  shall  not  be  ivithdrawn  ; 
for  Jehovah  shall  he  unto  thee  for  an  eternal  light,  and  completed  the  days 
of  thy  mourning.  There  is  no  need  of  supposing  any  want  of  consistency 
between  this  verse  and  that  before  it,  nor  even  that  the  Prophet  gives  a  new 
t'Urn  to  his  metaphor-  Thy  sun  shall  set  no  more,  is  evidently  tantamount 
to  saying,  thou  shalt  no  more  have  a  sun  that  sets  or  a  moon  that  withdraws 
herself,  because,  etc.  The  active  verb  "tJX  is  used  in  the  same  way  by 
Joel,  where  he  says  that  the  stars  withdraw  their  brightness,  i.  e.  cease  to 
shine.  The  expression  is  generic,  and  may  comprehend  all  failure  or 
decrease  of  light,  whether  by  setting,  waning,  or  eclipse,  or  by  the  tempo- 
rary intervention  of  a  cloud.  The  last  words  of  this  verse  are  correctly  said 
by  Henderson  to  furnish  a  key  to  the  whole  description,  by  identifying  joy 
with  light,  and  grief  with  darkness. — Compare  with  this  verse  ch.  25  :  8. 
Zech.  14  :  7.  Rev.  7  :  16.  21  :  4;  and  for  the  phrase,  days  of  mourning, 
Gen.  27  :  41. 

V.  21.  And  thy  people,  all  of  them,  righteous,  for  ever  shall  inherit  the 
earth,  the  branch  (or  shoot)  of  my  planting,  the  work  of  my  hands,  to  glorify 
If  (or  to  be  glorifed).— Compare  ch.  4  :  3.  33  :  24.  35  :  8.  52  :  1. 


390  CHAPTER    LX. 

Rev.  21:7,  27.  The  6rst  clause  may  also  be  read  as  two  distinct  propo- 
sitions, thy  people  all  of  them  are  (or  shall  he)  righteous,  for  ever  they  shall 
inherit  the  earth.  According  to  the  literal  interpretation,  so  called,  this  is 
a  promise  that  the  Jews  shull  possess  the  Holy  Land  for  ever.  But  even 
granting  land  to  be  a  more  literal  and  exact  translation,  which  it  is  not,  still 
the  usage  of  the  Scriptures  has  attached  to  this  prophetic  formnia  a  much 
higher  meaning,  the  possession  of  the  land  being  just  such  a  type  or  symbol 
of  the  highest  future  blessings  as  the  exodus  from  Egypt  is  of  ultimate 
deliverance,  or  the  overthrow  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  of  sudden,  condign, 
irretrievalile  destruction.  But  in  favour  of  the  wider  version,  earth,  is  the 
analogy  of  ch.  49  :  8,  where  Israel  is  represented  as  occupying  and  restor- 
ing the  desolate  heritages  of  the  whole  earth. — The  Septuagint  renders  -5£3 
by  q^vXuoocor,  as  if  written  "^': .  For  the  meaning  of  the  word,  see  above, 
ch.  11:1.14:19,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  pp.  218,  286.  According  to 
Hendewerk,  it  here  denotes  the  population  of  the  new  Jerusalem,  and  is 
identical  with  the  plant  and  root  of  ch.  53 :  2 ;  from  which  he  gravely  infers 
that  the  Qipi'ns  of  this  verse  and  the  P'"^s  of  ch.  53  :  11  must  also  be  iden- 
tical. The  dependence  of  God's  people  on  himself  for  the  origin  and  sus- 
tentation  of  their  spiritual  life  is  forcibly  expressed  by  the  figure  of  a  plant 
which  he  has  planted  (Ps.  92  :  14.  Matt.  15  :  13.  John  15  :  1,  2),  and 
by  that  of  a  work  which  he  has  wrought  (ch.  29  :  23.  43  :  7)  :  in  reference 
to  the  last  of  which  the  Apostle  says  (Eph.  2  :  10),  ur.  are  his  ti'orkman- 
ship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  tvorks,  vjhich  God  hath  before 
ordained  that  we  should  walk  in  them  ;  and  in  reference  to  the  first,  our  Lord 
himself  (John  15 :  8),  herein  is  my  Father  glorified  that  ye  bear  much  fruit, 
so  shall  ye  be  my  disciples  :  and  again,  with  an  entire  change  of  figure  (Matt. 
5  :  16),  let  your  light  so  shine  before  men  thai  they  may  see  your  good 
works  and  glorify  your  Father  ivhich  is  in  heaven.  The  same  ultimate 
design  is  set  forth  in  the  words  of  the  verse  before  us. — The  textual  reading 
iS'jn  is  regarded  by  Gesenius  and  most  other  writers  as  an  error  of  transcrip- 
tion for  ''"-■3  ,  as  given  in  the  margin.  But  Rosenmuller  seems  to  tiiink  that 
the  pronoun  of  the  third  person  may  refer  to  ""^n  ,  which  is  sometimes  mas- 
culine ;  De  Dieu  refers  it  to  the  people  ;  and  Maurer  thinks  it  possible  to 
connect  it  with  Jehovah,  by  a  sudden  enallage  so  common  in  the  prophets  ; 
which  last  is  approved  by  Hitzig,  but  avoided  as  too  harsh  in  his  translation. 
As  to  his  notion  that  ii<2rn  describes  God  as  being  proud  of  Israel,  see 
above,  on  v.  13. — To  the  question  whether  all  the  rs^storod  Jews  are  to  be 
righteous.  Henderson  says  nothing  ;  but  Michaelis  maintains  that  this  expres- 
sion does  not  necessarily  imply  regeneration  or  denote  true  piety,  but  simply 
signifies  the  prevalence  of  sb.tial  virtue,  such  as  may  exist  even  among  the 
heathen,  much  more  among  those  who  are  in  possession  of  the  true  religiou. 


CHAPTERLX  391 

— According  to  my  own  view  of  the  Prophet's  meaning,  he  here  predicts 
the  elevation  of  the  church  to  its  normal  or  ideal  state,  a  change  of  which 
we  may  already  see  the  rudiments,  however  far  we  may  be  yet  from  its  final 
consummation. 

V.  22.  The  little  one  shall  become  a  thousand,  and  the  small  one  a 
strong  nation ;  I,  Jehovah,  in  its  time  will  hasten  it.  The  superlative  sense 
given  to  the  adjectives  little  and  small  by  Gesenius  and  Ewald  is  a  needless 
departure  from  the  idiomatic  form  of  the  original.  The  substantive  verb 
with  h  may  also  be  rendered  shall  be  for,  i.  e.  shall  be  so  reckoned,  which 
amounts  to  the  same  thing.  Kimchi,  and  Rosenmuller  after  him,  very 
unnecessarily  observe  that  small  and  little  here  relate  to  number,  not  to 
size,  Gesenius  and  several  of  the  later  writers  understand  them  as  denoting 
one  without  a  family,  or  with  a  small  one  ;  in  which  case  the  Cib.i!<  might  be 
taken  in  its  genealogical  sense  of  household,  family,  or  other  subdivision  of 
a  tribe.  (Judges  6  :  15.  1  Sam.  10  :  12.  23  :  23.  Micah  5:1.)  But 
this  whole  interpretation  is  less  natural  than  that  of  Vitringa,  who  applies 
the  epithets  to  Israel  itself,  falsely,  according  to  Gesenius,  whose  ipse  dixit 
loses  much  of  its  authority  in  consequence  of  his  own  frequent  changes  of 
opinion  upon  insufficient  grounds,  or  none  at  all.  The  verse,  on  the  face 
of  it,  is  simply  a  description  of  increase,  like  that  in  ch.  26;  15.  49:  19,20. 
etc. — The  pronouns  in  the  last  clause  are  correctly  explained  by  Knobel  as 
neuters,  referring  to  the  whole  preceding  series  of  prophecies.  (Compare 
ch.  43:  13.  46:  11.)  The  his  in  the  common  version  is  equivalent  to  its  in 
modern  English,  a  possessive  form  apparently  unknown  to  the  translators  of 
the  Bible. — I  will  hasten  it,  has  reference  to  the  time  ordained  for  the  event, 
or  may  denote  the  suddenness  of  its  occurrence,  without  regard  to  its  remote- 
ness or  the  length  of  the  intervening  period,  which  seems  to  be  the  sense 
conveyed  by  the  Vulgate  version,  subito  faciam.  (See  above,  ch.  13  :  22, 
and  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  266.) — The  reference  of  these  promises  to 
the  literal  Jemsalem  is  ascribed  by  Jerome  to  the  Jews  and  half-Jews  (semi- 
judaei)  of  his  own  day,  and  opposed  by  Vitringa  on  a  very  insufficient 
ground,  viz.  the  impossibility  of  ascertaining  the  precise  site  of  the  ancient 
Jerusalem,  an  impossibility  which  may  be  considered  as  already  realized. 
(See  Robinson's  Palestine,  I.  p.  414.)  The  true  ground  of  objection  is  the 
violation  of  analogy  involved  in  this  interpretation.  The  idea  of  Eusebius 
and  Procopius,  that  the  prophecy  is  literal,  but  conditional,  and  now  rescinded 
by  the  unbelief  of  those  to  whom  it  was  addressed,  opens  the  door  to  endless 
license  and  makes  exegesis  either  useless  or  impossible.  It  is  a  curious  fact 
that  Gregory  VII.  applied  this  passage  to  the  church  of  Rome,  in  the  palmy 
state  to  which  she  was  exalted  by  himself.  The  hypothesis  of  Grotius,  that 
it  has  exclusive  reference  to  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  Babvlon,  is 


392  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  I . 

now  the  current  one  among  the  Germans,  who  of  course  are  unaffected  by 
Vitringa's  objection  that  the  prophecy  in  this  sense  never  was  fulfilled.  The 
real  argument  against  it,  is  the  absence  of  explicit  reference  to  the  supposed 
subject,  and  the  ease  with  which  an  indefinite  number  of  analoo-ous  restric- 
tions or  specific  applications  might  be  devised  and  carried  out  on  "rounds  of 
equal  plausibility.  The  only  hypothesis  which  seems  to  shun  the  opposite 
extremes  of  vagueness  and  minuteness,  and  to  take  the  language  in  its  obvi- 
ous sense,  without  forced  constructions  or  imaginary  facts,  is  the  one  pro- 
posed in  the  introduction,  and  on  which  the  exposition  of  the  chapter  has 
been  founded.  It  is  not  the  doctrine  of  some  early  writers,  that  the  Jerusa- 
lem or  Zion  of  this  passage  is  the  primitive  or  apostolic  church,  to  which 
the  description  is  in  many  points  inapplicable  ;  whereas  it  is  perfectly 
appropriate  to  the  JNevv  Jerusalem,  the  Christian  Church,  not  as  it  was,  or  is, 
or  will  be  at  any  period  of  its  history  exclusively,  but  viewed  in  reference 
to  the  whole  course  of  that  history,  and  in  contrast  with  the  m.any  disad- 
vantages and  hardships  of  the  old  economy. 


CHAPTER    LXI 


After  describing  the  new  condition  of  the  Church,  he  again  introduces 
the  great  personage  by  whom  the  change  is  to  be  brought  about.  His 
mission  and  its  object  are  described  by  himself  in  vs.  1—3.  Its  grand  result 
shall  be  the  restoration  of  a  ruined  world,  v.  4.  The  church,  as  a  mediator 
between  God  and  the  revolted  nations,  shall  enjoy  their  service  and  support, 
vs.  5,  6.  The  shame  of  God's  people  shall  be  changed  to  honour,  v.  7. 
His  righteousness  is  pledged  to  this  eiFect,  v.  8.  The  church,  once  restricted 
to  a  single  nation,  shall  be  recognised  and  honoured  among  all,  v.  9.  He 
triumphs  in  the  prospect  of  the  universal  spread  of  truth  and  righteousness, 
vs.  10,  11. 

V.  1.  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  Jehovah  (is)  ujjon  me,  because  Jehovah 
hath  anointed  me  to  bring  good  news  to  the  humble,  he  hath  sent  me  to  bind 
up  the  broken  in  heart,  to  proclaim  to  captives  freedom,  and  to  the  bound 
open  opening  (of  the  eyes  or  of  the  prison-doors.)  Unction  in  the  Old 
Testament  is  not  a  mere  sign  of  consecration  to  office,  whether  that  of  a 
Prophet,  Priest,  or  King  (I  Kings  19  :  16.  Lev.  8:12.  1  Kings  1  :  31), 
but  the  symbol  of  spiritual  influences,  by  which   the   recipient   was  both 


CHAPTERLXI.  393 

qualified  and  designated  for  his  work  (See  1  Sam.  10  :  1,  6.  16  :  13.) 
Hence  Kimchi's  definition  of  the  rite,  as  a  sign  of  the  divine  choice 
(f»t5':>if»  inp'"????  p^i>),  although  not  erroneous,  is  inadequate.  The  office  here 
described  approaches  nearest  to  the  prophetic.  The  specific  functions 
mentioned  have  all  occurred  and  been  explained  before.  (See  above,  on 
eh.  42  :  1-7.  48  :  16.  49  :  1-9.  50  :  4.  51  :  16.)  The  proclamation  of 
liberty  has  reference  to  the  year  of  jubilee  under  the  Mosaic  law  (Lev. 
25  :  10,  13.  27  :  24.  Jer.  34  :  8-10),  which  is  expressly  called  the  year 
of  liberty  or  liberation  by  Ezekiel  (46  :  17). — nip-n;rQ  is  explained  by 
Kimchi  and  Jarchi  to  mean  opening  of  the  prison,  the  second  word  being 
regarded  as  a  derivative  of  n;^b  to  take.  De  Dieu  obtains  the  same  sense 
by  appealing  to  the  Ethiopic  usage.  Gesenius  and  the  other  modern 
writers  are  disposed  to  follow  Aben  Ezra  in  treating  it  as  one  word  (nipni^s), 
not  a  compound  but  an  intensive  or  reduplicated  form,  intended  to  express 
the  idea  of  complete  or  thorough  opening.  (See  above,  ch.  2:  20,  and  the 
Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  36.)  This  Gesenius  understands  to  mean  the  open- 
ing of  the  prison,  but  in  opposition  to  the  settled  usage  which  restricts  npQ 
and  its  derivatives  to  the  opening  of  the  eyes  and  ears,  and  which  cannot 
be  set  aside  by  alleging  that  the  corresponding  verb  in  Arabic  is  used  more 
widely.  Ewald  adheres  to  the  only  authorized  sense,  but  explains  it  as  a 
figurative  description  of  deliverance  from  prison,  which  may  be  poetically 
represented  as  a  state  of  darkness,  and  deliverance  from  it  as  a  restoration  of 
the  sight.  But  for  reasons  which  have  been  already  given,  the  only  natural 
sense  which  can  be  put  upon  the  words  is  that  of  spiritual  blindness  and 
illumination.  (See  above,  on  ch.  42:7.  50:  10.)  With  this  question  is 
connected  another  as  to  the  person  here  introduced  as  speaking.  According 
to  Gesenius,  this  is  the  last  of  the  Prophet's  self-defences  (^Selbstajjologie)  ; 
and  he  even  goes  so  far  as  to  assert  that  all  interpreters  are  forced  (iiothge- 
drungen)  to  regard  Isaiah  as  himself  the  speaker.  Umbreit  supposes  him 
to  be  the  speaker,  but  only  as  the  type  and  representative  of  a  greater 
Prophet.  Vitringa  and  other  ortliodox  interpreters  regard  the  question  as 
decided  by  our  Lord  himself  in  tlie  synagogue  at  Nazareth,  when,  after 
reading  this  verse  and  a  portion  of  the  next  from  the  book  of  the  Prophet 
Isaiah,  he  began  to  say  unto  them,  this  ilay  is  this  scripture  fuffUed  in 
your  ears.  (Luke  4  :  16-22.)  The  brevity  of  this  discourse,  compared  with 
the  statement  which  immediately  follows,  that  the  people  bare  him  witness, 
and  wondered  at  the  gracious  words  tvhich  jjroceeded  out  of  his  mouth,  and 
connected  with  the  singular  expression  that  he  began  thus  to  say  unto  them, 
makes  it  probable  that  we  have  only  the  beginning  or  a  sunnnary  of  what 
the  Saviour  said  on  that  occasion.  That  the  whole  is  not  recorded  may 
however  be  regarded  as  a  proof  that  his  discourse  contained  no  interpreta- 
tion of  the  place  before  us  which  may  not  be  gathered  from  the  few  words 


394  CHAPTERLXI. 

left  on  record,  or  from  the  text  and  context  of  the  prophecy  itself.  Now  it 
must  be  admitted  that  the  words  of  Christ  just  quoted  do  not  necessarily 
import  that  he  is  the  direct  and  only  subject  of  the  prophecy;  for  even  if 
the  subject  were  Isaiah,  or  the  Prophets  as  a  class,  or  Israel,  yet  if  at  the 
same  tin)e  the  effects  foretold  were  coming  then  to  pass,  our  Lord  might 
say,  this  day  is  this  scripture  fuIJiUed  in  your  cars.  Upon  this  ground 
J.  D.  Michaelis  adopts  the  application  to  Isaiah,  without  disowning  the 
authority  of  Christ  as  an  interpreter  of  prophecy.  But  this  restriction  of  the 
passage  is  at  variance  with  what  we  have  already  seen  to  be  the  true  sense 
of  the  parallel  places  (ch.  42:  1-7  and  ch.  49:  1-9),  where  the  form  of 
expression  is  the  same,  and  where  all  agree  that  the  same  speaker  is  brought 
forward.  If  it  has  been  concluded  on  sufficient  grounds  that  the  ideal  person 
there  presented  is  the  Messiah,  the  same  conclusion  cannot,  without  arbitrary 
violence,  be  avoided  here,  and  thus  the  prophecy  itself  interprets  our  Lord's 
words  instead  of  being  interpreted  by  them.  This  in  the  present  case  is 
more  satisfactory,  because  it  cuts  off  all  objection  drawn  from  the  indefinite 
character  of  his  expressions.  At  the  same  time,  and  by  parity  of  reasoning, 
a  subordinate  and  secondary  reference  to  Israel  as  a  representative  of  the 
Messiah,  and  to  the  Prophets  as  in  some  sense  the  representatives  of  Israel 
as  well  as  of  Messiah  in  their  prophetic  character,  must  be  admitted  ;  and 
thus  we  are  brought  again  to  Christ  as  the  last  and  the  ideal  Prophet,  and 
to  the  ground  assumed  by  the  profound  and  far-seeing  Calvin,  for  which  he 
has  been  severely  censured  even  by  Calvinistic  writers,  and  which  Vitringa, 
while  professing  to  defend  him,  calls  a  concession  to  the  Jews  (hie  aliquid 
indulgendum  censuit  Judaeis),  instead  of  a  concession  to  candour,  faith, 
good  taste,  and  common  sense.  Henderson's  exposition  of  this  passage 
differs  from  that  of  other  orthodox  interpreters  only  in  connecting  the  Mes- 
siah's office,  here  described  specifically,  with  the  future  restoration  of  the 
Jews.  It  might  have  been  supposed  that  some  obstruction  would  have  been 
presented  to  a  literal  interpreter  in  this  case  by  the  very  strong  expression 
of  our  Lord,  this  day  is  this  prophecy  fulfilled  in  your  ears.  But  the  pro- 
cess of  literal  interpretation  is  in  practice  very  simple  and  convenient. 
While  the  personal  reference  of  the  words  to  Christ,  which  is  not  affirmed 
by  himself  at  all,  is  represented  as  "  the  highest  possible  authority  "  for  so 
explaining  them,  the  actual  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  at  that  time,  which 
is  affirmed  as  strongly  as  it  could  be,  goes  for  nothing.  The  two  parts  of 
this  singular  process  cannot  be  presented  in  more  striking  contrast  than 
by  direct  quotation.  "  No  principle  of  accommodation,  or  of  secondary 
application,  can  at  all  satisfy  the  claims  of  the  announcement,  this  day  is 
this  scripture  fulfilled  in  your  ears.  It  must,  however,  be  observed,  that 
this  completion  merely  lay  in  our  Lord's  entering  upon  the  public  discharge 
of  his  prophetic  office  among  the  Jews.     Far  from  being  confined  to  the 


CHAPTERLXI.  395 

instructions  of  that  particular  day,  it  was  to  be  exercised  in  perpetuity, 
during  the  continuance  of  the  church  upon  earth,  and  pre-eminkntly  as 
IT  RESPECTS  THE  Jews,  at  the  future  period  here  referred  to."  This  prin- 
ciple of  gradual  or  continued  fulfilment,  not  at  a  single  point  of  time,  but 
through  a  course  of  ages,  is  not  only  sound  and  often  absolutely  necessary 
to  a  correct  interpretation  of  the  prophets,  but  the  very  principle  which  in  a 
hundred  other  instances  is  sacrificed  without  a  scruple  to  the  chimera  of  a 
purely  "literal  "  interpretation.  Another  remarkable  comment  of  the  same 
able  writer  upon  this  verse  is  as  follows:  "The  terms  captives  and  prison- 
ers are  to  be  taken  metaphorically,  and  have  no  reference  to  external 
restraint."  It  is  only  Jerusalem  and  Zion,  and  the  temple  and  the  trees 
required  in  building  it,  that  "  must  be  literally  explained."  See  above  on 
ch.  60  :  13. 

V.  2.  To  proclaim  a  year  of  favour  for  Jehovah  and  a  day  of  ven- 
geance for  our  God,  to  comfort  all  mourners,  Gesenius  and  Rosenmiiller 
explain  h  as  the  idiomatic  sign  of  the  genitive  when  separated  from  its 
governing  noun,  'Jehovah's  year  of  grace,  God's  day  of  vengeance.'  It  is 
equally  agreeable  to  usage,  and  more  natural  in  this  case,  to  give  the  particle 
its  wider  sense  as  denoting  relation  in  general,  a  year  of  favour  as  to  or  con- 
cerning God,  which  may  here  be  expressed  by  the  English /or.  Vitringa 
quotes  Clement  of  Alexandria  as  inferring  from  the  use  of  the  word  year 
in  this  verse  that  our  Lord's  public  ministry  was  only  one  year  in  duration, 
a  conclusion  paradoxically  maintained  by  Gerard  John  Vossius,  but  wholly 
irreconcilable  with  the  gospel  history.  The  expression  is  correctly  explained 
by  Vitringa  as  a  poetical  equivalent  to  day,  suggested  by  the  previous 
allusion  to  the  year  of  jubilee  ;  and  Hitzig  adds  that  there  is  probably  a 
reference  to  God's  vengeance  as  a  transitory  act,  and  to  his  mercy  as  a 
lasting  one.  The  same  two  words  occur  as  parallels  in  ch.  34  :  8.  63  :  4, 
while  in  ch.  49  :  8  we  have  the  general  expression  time  of  favour.  For  the 
meaning  of  the  last  words  of  the  verse,  see  above,  on  cIk  49  :  13  and 
57  :  18.  They  may  either  be  descriptive  of  sufferers,  as  the  persons  needing 
consolation,  or  of  penitents,  as  those  who  shall  alone  receive  it. 

V.  3.  To  put  upon  Zion's  mourners — to  give  them  a  croxcn  instead  of 
ashes,  the  oil  of  joy  for  mourning,  a  garment  of  praise  for  a  faint  spirit ; 
and  it  shall  he  called  to  them  (or  they  shall  be  called^  the  oaks  of  righteous- 
ness, the  planting  of  Jehovah  (i.  e.  planted  by  Jehovah)  to  glorify  himself 
The  construction  seems  to  be  interiupted  and  resumed,  a  practice  not  unfre- 
quent  with  Isaiah.  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  of  supplying  joy  after  the 
first  verb,  as  Houbigant  and  Lowth  do.  Of  the  many  senses  which  might 
here  be  attached  to  the  verb  err,  the  most  appropriate  is  \\\a\.  o{  putting  on, 


396  CHAPTER    LXI. 

as  applied  to  dress,  though  with  another  particle,  in  Gen.  37  :  34.  41  :  42, 
and  often  elsewhere.  The  English  Version  has  appoint,  and  Gesenius  give  ; 
both  of  which  are  justified  by  usage,  but  less  suitable  in  this  case  than  the 
one  above  proposed.  By  the  repetition  of  the  word  mourners,  this  verse  is 
wrought  into  the  foregoing  context  in  a  mode  of  which  we  have  had  several 
examples.  (See  above,  on  ch.  60  :  15.)  Zion's  mourners  may  be  simply 
those  who  mourn  in  Zion,  or  those  who  mourn  for  her  (ch.  66  :  10)  •,  but  as 
these  ideas  are  not  incompatible,  both  may    be  included.      (Compare  ch. 

57  :  IS.  60  :  20.)  Gesenius  speaks  of  the  paronomasia  between  ins  and 
1SX  as  something  entirely  distinct  from  the  antithesis  in  sense  between  an 
ornamental  head-dress  and  the  ashes  strewn  upon  the  head  by  mourners. 
But  this  relation  of  ideas  may  be  looked  upon  as  really  essential  to  a  true 
paronomasia.  Augusti's  ridiculous  travesty  of  this  phrase  {Putzfur  Schmutz) 
has  been  actually  revived  by  De  VVette.  Ewald  with  purer  taste  neglects 
the  verbal  assonance,  and  reproduces  Jerome's  fine  translation  (coronam  pro 
cinere.)  That  ointment  was  not  used  by  mourners  but  rejoicers,  may  be 
learned  from  a  comparison  of  2  Sam.  14  :  2  with  Ps.  23  :  5.  Hitzig 
derives  f^\^'n  from  the  Kal  of  bbn  and  explains  it  to  mean  brightness  as  the 
parallel  term  rins  is  applied  to  a  pale  colour  (Lev.  13  :  21)  ;  but  a  sufficient 
contrast  is  afforded  by  the  usual  sense  praise,  the  whole  phrase  meaning 
garments  which  excite  admiration.  For  the  meaning  and  translation  of 
fi'^p'^s,  see  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  21.  By  oaks  of  righteousness  Gese- 
nius understands  such  as  enjoy  the  divine  favour  or  blessing;  Lovvth,  such 
as  prove  by  their  flourishing  condition  that  they  were  planted  by  him  ; 
Henderson,  such  as  bear  the  fruit  of  righteousness  ;  Luzzatto,  terebinths  of 
long  duration,  as  in  ch.  1  :  26 ;  instead  of  city  of  righteousness  and  fliithful 
city,  he  reads  city  of  permanence,  enduring  city.  The  mixture  not  only  of 
metaphors  but  also  of  literal  and  figurative  language  in  this  verse,  shows 
clearly  that  it  has  respect  to  spiritual  not  external  changes.  (Compare  ch. 
44  :  4.  60  :  21.) 

V.  4.  And  they  shall  build  up  the  ruins  of  antiquity,  the  desolations  of 
the  ancients  they  shall  raise,  and  shall  renew  the  cities  of  ruin  (i.  e.  ruined 
cities),  the  desolations  of  age  and  age.  Both  the  thought  and  language  of 
this  verse  have  been  explained  already.  (See  above,  on  ch.  49:  8.  54  :  3. 
58:  12.)     Lowth,  not  contented  with  the  difficulty  of  explaining  "i^^  in  ch. 

58  :  12,  would  insert  it  here,  on  the  authority  of  four  manuscripts  and  David 
Kimchi  ;  but  Kocher  understands  the  latter  as  distinctly  pointing  out  the 
difference  between  the  places. — The  older  writers  take  n^;t\s-i  as  an  adjec- 
tive agreeing  with  ri^rir,  but  this  is  feminine  ;  Gesenius  and  Ewald,  as  an 
absolute  adjective  or  noun  corresponding  to  majorcs,  ancestors  or  ancients  ; 
Umbreit,  as  a  noun  meaning  ancient  times. — Hendewerk  agrees  with  Gese- 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  1 .  397 

niiis,  but  applies  the  term  specifically  to  the  Jews  who  were  alive  at  the 
destruction  of  the  temple.  The  verb  reneiv  is  applied  as  in  2  Chr.  15:8. 
24:4. — According  to  Henderson,  this  verse  and  the  next  "admit  of  no 
consistent  interpretation  except  on  the  principle  that  the  Jews  are  to  be 
restored  to  the  land  of  their  fathers.  The  ruins  and  desolations  are  those  of 
cities  that  had  once  been  inhabited,  and  cannot,  without  the  utmost  violence, 
be  applied  to  the  heathen  world."  But  why  may  they  not  be  explained  as 
"  imagery,"  like  ch.  60 :  19,  20,  or  be  "  taken  metaphorically"  and  without 
reference  to  external  desolation,  like  the  captives  and  prisoners  of  v.  1  ?  If 
this  be  what  is  meant  by  "consistent  interpretation,"  it  is  very  dearly  pur- 
chased by  assuming  as  a  "  principle"  a  fact  not  mentioned  in  the  text  or 
context,  and  supposing  this  to  be  literally  alluded  to  wherever  the  hypo- 
thesis is  possible,  while  all  the  accompanying  circumstances  are  explained 
away  as  figures. 

V.  5.  Then  shall  stand  strangers  and  feed  your  flocks,  and  the  children 
of  outland  {shall  be)  your  ploughmen  and  your  vinedressers.  For  the  sense 
of  ~=;""':2  ,  see  above,  on  ch.  60  :  10.  Kimchi  explains  stand  to  mean,  they 
shall  rise  and  come  for  the  purpose.  Some  suppose  it  to  be  an  idiomatic 
pleonasm,  others  a  periphrasis  for  service  ;  but  the  first  is  a  mere  evasion, 
and  the  second  sense  belongs  to  the  verb  only  when  standing  in  the  pre- 
sence of  another  is  expressed  or  implied.  (Deut.  1  :  38.  1  Kings  1  :  28. 
Jer.  52  :  12.)  The  conjunction  of  these  verbs  here  and  in  Mic.  5:  3  may 
justify  the  supposition  that  the  primary  reference  in  either  case  is  to  a  prac- 
tice of  the  oriental  shepherds.  As  to  the  meaning  of  the  prophecy,  inter- 
preters are  much  divided.  Some  seem  to  take  it  in  the  strictest  sense  as  a 
promise  that  the  heathen  should  be  slaves  to  the  Jews.  (See  above,  ch. 
14:  2,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  268.)  Gesenius  understands  it  as 
meaning  that  the  Jews  should  confine  themselves  to  spiritual  services, 
and  leave  mere  secular  pursuits  to  the  gentiles.  Nearly  allied  to  this  is 
Hitzig's  explanation,  that  the  Jews  and  gentiles  are  described  as  sustaining 
the  relation  of  priests  and  laymen  to  each  other.  Ewald  qualifies  it  still 
more  by  describing  the  relation  to  be  that  of  the  Levites  to  the  other  tribes, 
and  even  this  restricted  by  the  promise  in  ch.  66  :  21.  But  that  verse 
shows  conclusively  that  no  exclusive  promise  of  Levitical  or  sacerdotal  rank 
to  the  Jews,  as  distinguished  from  the  gentiles,  can  be  here  intended.  This 
is  confirmed  by  the  language  of  Peter,  who  applies  the  promise  of  the  next 
verse  to  the  Christian  church  (1  Pet.  2  :  5).  The  only  way  in  which  all 
these  seeming  discrepancies  can  be  reconciled,  is  by  supposing,  a^  we  have 
done  hitherto,  that  even  in  Ex.  19:6  the  promise  is  addressed  to  Israel 
not  as  a  nation  but  a  church  ;  so  that  when  the  Jewish  people  ceased  to  bear 
this  character,  they  lost  all  claim  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise,  which  is 


393  CHAPTER    LXI. 

still  in  force  and  still  enures  to  the  benefit  of  those  to  whom  it  was  originally 
given,  namely,  the  Israel  of  God,  that  is  to  say,  his  church  or  chosen  people. 
This  view  of  the  matter  sets  aside  not  only  the  interpretations  which  have 
been  already  mentioned  as  confining  the  promise  to  the  natural  descendants 
of  Israel,  but  also  that  of  Jerome  and  Procopius,  who,  although  they  cor- 
rectly recognise  the  church  as  the  object  of  address,  make  tliis  a  threatening 
that  the  Jews  shall  be  supplanted  by  the  gentiles  as  the  pastors  or  ministers 
of  the  flock  of  God.  That  the  holders  of  this  office  might  in  strict  accordance 
with  the  usage  of  Scripture  and  of  this  book  be  described  as  shepherds,  hus- 
bandmen, and  vinedressers,  may  be  seen  by  a  comparison  of  cl).  3  :  14. 
5:1.  11:6.  27  :  2.  30 :  23,  24.  40:11  with  Acts  20 :  28.  1  Cor.  3  :  9. 
9  :  7,  and  with  the  imagery  of  our  Saviour's  parables.  It  does  not  follow 
necessarily,  however,  that  the  office  here  assigned  to  strangers  and  foreigners 
is  that  of  spiritual  guides,  much  less  that  ihey  are  doomed  to  a  degrading 
servitude.  The  simplest  exj)lanation  of  the  verse  is  that  which  understands 
it  as  descriptive  not  of  subjugation  but  of  intimate  conjunction,  as  if  he  had 
said,  those  who  are  now  strangers  and  foreigners  shall  yet  be  sharers  in  your 
daily  occupations  and  intrusted  with  your  dearest  interests.  By  strangers 
we  are  then  to  understand  not  gentiles  as  opposed  to  Jews,  but  all  who  have 
been  aliens  from  the  covenant  of  mercy  and  the  church  of  God. — The  only 
comment  made  by  Henderson  on  this  verse  is  included  in  the  observation 
already  quoted  that  these  two  verses  (4  and  5)  "  admit  of  no  consistent  inter- 
pretation, except  on  the  principle  that  the  Jews  are  to  be  restored  to  the 
land  of  their  fathers."  How  the  author  would  apply  this  in  detail  to  the 
fifth  verse  we  can  only  argue  analogically  from  his  exposition  of  the  fourth  ; 
and  as  he  there  insists  upon  a  literal  rebuilding  of  the  cities  once  inhabited 
by  Jews  as  the  only  sense  of  which  the  prophecy  admits  "  without  the  utmost 
violence,"  so  here  he  may  be  understood  as  tacitly  believing  in  a  future  sub- 
jection of  the  gentiles  to  the  restored  Jews,  as  their  husbandmen  and  shep- 
herds. If,  on  the  other  hand,  he  understands  the  service  here  exacted  to  be 
metaphorical  or  spiritual,  we  have  only  to  repeat  what  we  have  said  before 
as  to  the  worth  of  that  "  consistent  interpretation  "  which  results  from  the 
application  of  this  novel  "principle." 

V.  6.  And  ye  (or  more  emphatically,  as  for  you),  the  priests  of  Jeho- 
vah shall  ye  be  called,  the  ministers  of  our  God  shall  be  said  to  you  (or  of 
you),  the  strength  of  nations  shall  ye  eat,  and  in  their  glory  shall  ye  substi- 
tute yourselves  (or  into  their  glory  shall  ye  enter  by  exchange).  Most  of 
the  earlier  writers,  down  to  Gesenius  in  his  Commentary,  agree  substantially 
with  Jerome  in  bis  version  of  the  last  word  (sujjerbietis),  which  they  regard 
as  a  cognate  form  or  an  orthographical  variation  of  ii'axn'i  in  Ps.  94  :  4,  where 
it  seems  to  denote  talking  of  one's  self,  and,  by  a  natural  transition,  glorying 


CHAPTER    LXI.  399 

or  boasting.     Albert  Schultens  tried  to  found  upon  an  Arabic  analogy  the 
sense  of  '  providing  for  one's  self,'  and  Scheid  that  of  '  floating  or  swimming 
in  abundance.'      But  all  the  latest  writers,  not  excepting  Gesenius  in   his 
Thesaurus,  have  gone  back  to  Jarchi's  explanation  of  the  word  as  denoting 
'mutual  exchange  or  substitution.'     This  supposes  it  to  be  derived   from 
i^'i ,  a  cognate  form  and  synonyme  of  i^"a  ,  to  change  or  exchange,  occur- 
ring only  in  the  Hiphil,  Jer.  2:11.      This  word  is  important  as  determining 
the  sense  not  only  of  the  whole  verse,  but  of  that  before  it,  by  requiring 
both  to  be  considered  as  descriptive  not  of  exaltation  and  subjection,  but  of 
mutual  exchange,  implying  intimate  association.     Some,  it  is  true,  attempt 
to  carry  out  the  first  idea   even  here,  by  making  this  last   word  denote  an 
absolute  exclusive  substitution,  i.  e.  the  dispossession  of  the  gentiles  by  the 
Jews.     But  the  context,  etymology,  and  usage,  all  combine  to  recommend 
the  idea  of  recipi'ocal  exchange  or  mutual  substitution.     Interpreters  in  seek- 
ing a   factitious  antithesis  between  the  verses,  have  entirely  overlooked   the 
natural   antithesis  between  the  clauses  of  this  one  verse.     They  have  sup- 
posed the  contrast  intended   to  he   that  between  servitude  and  priesthood  : 
'they  shall  be  your  servants,  and  ye  shall  be  their  priests.'    But  we  have  seen 
already  that  the  fifth  verse  cannot,  in  consistency  with  ch.  66  :  10,  denote 
any  thing  but  intimate  conjunction  and   participation.     The  tiue  antithesis 
is  :   'ye  shall  be  their  priests,  and   they  shall  be  your  purveyors;  you  shall 
supply  their  spiritual    wants,  and   they  shall  supply  your  temporal  wants.' 
This  explanation  of  the   verse,   to  which   we  have   been   naturally  led  by 
philological   induction  and  the  context,  coincides,  in  a  manner  too  remarka- 
able  to  be  considered  accidental,  with  the  words  of  Paul  in   writing  to  the 
Romans  of  the  contribution  made  by  the  churches  of  Macedonia  and  Achaia 
for  the   poor  saints   at  Jerusalem  :    It  hath  pleased  them  verihj,  and  their 
debtors  they  are  (i.  e.  they  have  chosen  to  do  it,  and  indeed  were  bound  to 
do   it)  ;   for  if  the  gentiles   have  been  made  partalcers  of  their  spiritual 
things,  their  duty  is  also  to  minister  vnto   them,  in  carnal  things.      (Rom. 
15  :  27.)     This  may  seem,  however,  to  determine  the  object  of  address  to 
be  the  Jews  ;  but  no  such   inference  can   fairly  be  deduced  from  the  words 
of  the  Apostle,  who  is  oidy  making  one  specific  application  of  the  general 
truth  taught  by  the  Pro[)li'.>t.       What  was  tiue  of  the  gentile  converts  then, 
in  relation  to  the  Jewish  Christi;ins  as  their  mother-church,  is  no  less  true  of 
the  heathen  now,  or  even  of  converted  Jews,  in  reference  to  the  Christians 
who  impart  the  gospel  to  them.     The  essential   idea  in  both  places  is,  that 
the  church,  the  chosen  people,  or  the  Israel  of  God,  is  charged  with  the 
duty  of  communicating  spiritual   things  to  those   without,   and   entitled  in 
return   to  an   increase  of  outward   strength   from   those   who  thus  become 
incorporated  with  it. — But  it  is  not  merely  in  this  lower  sense  that  the  peo- 
ple of  God  are  in  the  law  (Ex.  19  :  20)  and  the  gospel   (1  Pet.  1  :  3),  as 


400  CHAPTER    LXl. 

well  as  in  the  prophets,  represented  as  the  ministers  and  priests  of  God. 
Not  only  as  instructors  and  reclaimers  of  the  unbelieving  world  do  they 
enjoy  this  sacred  dignity,  but  also  as  the  only  representatives  of  their  Great 
High  Priest,  in  him  and  through  him  possessing  free  access  to  the  fountain 
of  salvation  and  the  throne  of  grace.  (Heb.  4  :  14-16.)  In  this  respect, 
as  in  every  other  which  concerns  the  method  of  salvation  and  access  to  God, 
there  is  no  distinction  of  Jew  and  gentile,  any  more  than  of  Greek  and 
barbarian,  male  and  female,  bond  and  free  ;  but  all  are  Christ's,  and  Christ 
is  God's,  and  all  alike  are  priests  and  ministers  of  God. — It  only  remains  to 
add,  that  on  the  principle  of  limiting  this  prophecy  to  the  future  restoration 
of  the  Jews,  it  might  have  been  supposed  that  this  verse  would  be  literally 
understood  as  promising  both  temporal  and  spiritual  superiority  to  other 
nations  ;  but  according  to  the  able  representative  of  that  opinion,  who  has 
been  so  often  quoted,  it  "implies  holiness,  spirituality,  and  devotedness  to 
thfe  service  of  God  ;  so  abundant  shall  be  the  supplies,  that  there  shall  be 
no  absorption  of  time  by  the  cares  and  distraction  of  business."  This,  it 
seems,  is  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  promise  that  the  Jews  shall  be  the 
priests  and  ministers  of  God,  and  as  such  shall  consume  the  wealth  of  the 
nations  and  have  their  riches  at  command  ;  for  such  is  the  meaning  put  upon 
!n52"rn  by  Henderson,  who  traces  it  to  "^s,  in  the  sense  of  commanding. 
Why  there  is  any  less  "  violence"  in  this  interpretation  of  the  verse  before  us 
than  in  the  reference  of  v.  4  to  the  universal  spread  of  the  gospel,  does  not 
appear. 

V.  7.  Instead  of  your  shame  (ye  shall  have)  double,  and  (instead  of 
their)  confusion,  they  shall  celebrate  their  portion  ;  therefore  in  their  land 
shall  they  inherit  double,  everlasting  joy  shall  be  to  them.  Vitringa  and 
Rosenmiiller  understand  the  therefore  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  clause 
as  deciding  that  the  recompense  must  be  described  exclusively  in  that  clause, 
while  the  first  is  wholly  occupied  with  the  account  of  their  previous  suffer- 
ings :  '  Instead  of  your  double  shame,  and  instead  of  your  lamenting  (or  their 
exulting),  that  confusion  was  their  portion.'  etc.  From  this  and  other  simi- 
lar unnatural  constructions,  Gesenius  and  all  the  later  writers  have  gone 
back  to  the  one  given  in  the  Targuni  and  by  Jaichi,  which  makes  double 
refer  not  to  shame  but  recompense,  and  gives  ^s't;  the  same  subject  with  the 
other  verbs.  It  is  still  considered  necessary,  however,  to  assume  an  enallage 
of  person,  so  that  your  shame  and  their  portion  may  relate  to  the  same  sub- 
ject. It  is  not  impossible,  however,  that  the  Prophet  has  in  view  the  same 
two  classes  who  are  distinctly  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verses, — a  construc- 
tion which  would  not  only  do  away  with  the  enallage,  but  go  far  to  confirm 
the  explanation  which  has  been  already  given  of  those  verses  as  descriptive 
of  mutual  participation. — There  is  no  need  of  explaining  eps^n  with  Gesenius 


CHAP  TER    LXI.  401 

as  an  accusative  of  place,  or  supplying  in  before  it,  with  the  older  writers  ; 
since  the  verb  may  govern  it  directly,  as  in  Ps.  51  :  16.  59  :  17. — Lowth 
complains  of  the  confusion  in  the  Hebrew  text,  and  applies  an  extraordinary- 
remedy,  by  substituting  the  Peshito  version,  after  first  amending  it. — Accord- 
ing to  Henderson,  this  verse  means  that  the  honour  conferred  by  God  upon 
the  restored  Jews,  and  the  estimation  in  which  they  shall  be  held  by  believing 
gentiles,  will  far  overbalance  the  contenijit  to  which  they  have  been  subject. 
The  limitation  of  the  passage  to  the  "restored  Jews"  is  as  groundless  and 
arbitrary  here  as  elsewhere. — Double  is  used  indefinitely  to  denote  a  large 
proportion.     Compare  ch.  40  :  2. 

V.  8.  For  lam  Jehovah,  loving  justice,  hating  (that  which  is)  ialien 
aivay  unjustly,  and  I  will  give  their  hire  truly,  and  an  everlasting  covenant  I 
strike  for  them.  The  Vulgate  and  the  rabbins  give  rials'  its  usual  sense 
of  a  burnt-offering,  and  explain  the  clause  to  mean  that  God  hates  unjust 
violence,  especially  (or  even)  in  religious  offerings.  The  modern  writers 
generally  follow  the  Septuagint  in  making  it  synonymous  with  tih'P,  (which 
is  actually  found  in  a  few  manuscripts),  an  explanation  countenanced  by 
the  undoubted  use  of  the  corresponding  plural  and  paragogic  forms  in  that 
sense.  (Job  5  :  16.  Ps.  58  :  3.  64  :  7.)  Jerome's  objection  that  all  rob- 
bery is  unjust,  would  apply  to  a  multitude  of  other  places  where  there  seems 
to  be  a  redundance  of  expression,  and  proceeds  upon  the  false  assumption 
that  hn  necessarily  expresses  the  complex  idea  robbery,  whereas  it  may 
be  here  used  in  its  primary  and  strict  sense  of  violent  seizure  or  privation, 

the  idea  of  injustice,  which  is  commonly  implied,  being  here  expressed. 

For  the  usage  of  tn^sia  ,  see  above,  on  ch.  40  :  11,  and  for  that  of  n-i-is  n'ns, 
on  ch.  28  :  15.  55  :  3. — This  verse  is  commonly  applied  to  the  violence 
practised  upon  Israel  by  the  Babylonians.  (Compare  ch.  42  :  24.)  It  is 
rather  an  enunciation  of  the  general  truth,  that  the  divine  justice  renders 
absolutely  necessary  the  destruction  of  his  obstinate  enemies,  and  the  deli- 
verance of  his  people  from  oppression.     (Compare  2  Thess.  1  :  6-8.) 

V.  9.  T/ten  shall  he  known  among  the  nations  their  seed,  and  their 
issue  in  the  midst  of  the  j;eoples.  All  seeing  them  shall  achnorvledge  them 
that  they  are  a  seed  Jehovah  has  blessed.  Vitringa,  Gesenius,  and  some 
later  writers,  give  to  2."^i^  the  emphatic  sense  of  being  famous  or  illustrious 
as  in  Ps.  76  :  2,  where  the  parallel  expression  is  i^TiJ  binj, .  But  in  the  case 
before  us,  the  parallelism,  far  from  requiring  this  peculiar  sense,  requires  the 
usual  one  o(  being  knoivn,  as  corresponding  better  to  the  phrase  they  shall 
recognise  them.  Thus  understood,  the  first  clause  means  that  they  shall  be 
known  among  the  nations  in  their  true  character  as  a  seed  or  race  highly 
favoured  of  Jehovah.     Issue  means  progeny  or  offspring,  as  in  ch.  48  :  19. 

26 


402  CHAPTER    LXI. 

In  order  to  apply  this  to  the  restored  Jews,  we  must  depart  from  the  literal 
and  obvious  import  of  among  and  in  the  midst,  and  understand  them  as 
denoting  merely  that  they  shall  be  heard  of ;  for  how  can  they  be  said  to 
be  among  and  in  the  midst  of  the  nations  at  the  very  time  when  they  are 
gathered  from  them  to  their  own  land.  And  yet  the  whole  connexion  seems 
to  favour  the  first  meaning,  and  to  show  that  they  are  here  described  as 
being  scattered  through  the  nations,  and  there  recognised  by  clear  distinctive 
marks  as  being  God's  peculiar  i)eople,  just  as  the  Jews  took  knowledge  of 
Peter  and  John  that  tliey  had  been  with  Jesus.  (Acts  4  :  13.)  It  may 
be  on  account  of  this  apparent  inconsistency  between  the  obvious  sense  of 
this  verse  and  his  own  adopted  "  principle,"  tliat  Henderson  has  no  remark 
upon  it,  save  that  "a  in  tin-S'^  is  pleonastic."  Some  of  the  older  writers, 
to  avoid  this  assumption,  render  "^3  because, — '  all  that  see  them  shall  acknow- 
ledo-e  them,  because  they  are  a  seed  which  Jehovah  has  blessed.'  But,  as 
Vitrinfi-a  well  observes,  the  verb  requires  a  more  specific  statement  of  its 
object.  Gesenius  and  the  later  writers  liken  the  construction  to  that  in 
Gen.  1  :  4,  God  saw  the  light  that  it  was  good  ;  not  simply  saw  that  the 
lio-ht  was  good,  but  saw  the  light  itself,  and  in  so  doing  saw  that  it  was 
good.  So  here  the  meaning  is  not  merely  that  all  seeing  them  shall  acknow- 
ledf^e  that  they  are  a  seed,  etc.,  but  that  all  seeing  them  shall  recognise  them 
by  recognising  the  effects  and  evidences  of  the  divine  blessing. — The  ellipsis 
of  the  relative  is  the  same  in  Hebrew  and  colloquial  English. — The  true 
application  of  the  verse  is  to  the  Israel  of  God  in  its  diffusion  among  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth,  who  shall  be  constrained  by  what  they  see  of  their 
spirit,  character,  and  conduct,  to  acknowledge  that  they  are  the  seed  which 
the  Lord  hath  blessed.  The  glorious  fulfilment  of  this  promise  in  its  origi- 
nal and  proper  sense,  may  be  seen  already  in  the  influence  exerted  by  the 
eloquent  example  of  the  missionary  on  the  most  ignorant  and  corrupted 
heathen,  without  waiting  for  the  future  restoration  of  the  Jews  to  the  land  of 
iheir  fathers. 

V.  10.  (/  ivill)  joy,  I  will  joy  in  Jehovah,  Jet  my  soul  exult  in  my  God ; 
for  he  hath  clothed  me  with  garments  of  salvation,  a  mantle  of  righteous- 
ness has  he  put  on  me,  as  the  bridegroom  adjusts  his  priestly  crown,  and  as 
the  bride  arrays  her  jewels.  Vitringa  here  leads  his  chorus  off  the  stage, 
where  he  has  kept  it  since  the  beginning  of  v.  4,  and  lets  the  church  come 
on,  but  whether  as  a  male  or  female  he  considers  a  doubtful  and  perplexing 
question.  To  a  reader  unencumbered  with  this  clumsy  theatrical  machinery, 
it  must  be  evident  that  these  are  the  words  of  the  same  speaker  who  appears 
at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter  and  the  next.  J.  D.  Michaelis  supposes  an 
allusion  to  the  oriental  practice  of  bestowing  the  caftan  or  honorary  dress 
upon  distinguished  culprits  who  have  been  acquitted.     Luzzatto,   in  order 


CH  A  PTE  R    LXI.  403 

to  avoid  the  assumption  of  a  root  "?•;  in  this  one  case,  reads  ^Vr.'^.l  from  iTjs  ; 
but  this,  besides  being  arbitrary,  throws  the  syntax  of  the  tenses  into  a  con- 
fusion which,  although  it  may  be  elsewhere  unavoidable,  is  not  to  be  assumed 
in  any  case  without  necessity. — -ri'^  is  to  put  on  or  wear,  but  always  used 
in  reference  to  ornaments.  c^bs  may  signify  not  merely  gems,  but  orna- 
mental dress  in  general.  (See  Deut.  2'2:  5.) — Gesenius  in  his  Commentary 
gives  'iv]3  the  general  sense  of  beautifying  or  adorning  ;  but  in  his  Thesaurus 
he  agrees  with  the  modern  writers  in  acknowledging  the  derivation  from  "(ins 
a  priest,  for  which  no  satisfactory  etymology  has  yet  been  proposed.  'As 
the  bridegroom  priests  his  turban.'  So  Aquila  cos,'  rvfiqxov  lEQatsvofiEvov 
aiecpdim.  The  reference  is  no  doubt  to  the  sacerdotal  mitre,  which  was 
probably  regarded  as  a  model  of  ornamental  head-dress,  and  to  which  "^Ji^a  is 
explicitly  applied  (Ex.  39:  28.  Ez.  44  :  18). — Salvation  and  righteousness 
are  here  combined,  as  often  elsewhere,  to  denote  the  cause  and  the  effect, 
the  justice  of  God  as  displayed  in  the  salvation  of  his  people.  (See  v.  8, 
above.)  Or  righteousness  may  be  referred  to  the  people,  as  denoting  the 
practical  justification  afforded  by  their  signal  deliverance  from  suffering. 

V.  11.  For  as  the  earth  puts  forth  its  growth,  and  as  the  garden  makes 
its  plants  to  grow,  so  shall  the  Lord  Jehovah  make  to  grow  righteousness 
and  praise  before  all  the  nations.  Compare  ch.  45  :  8  and  Ps.  85  :  II,  12. 
The  exact  construction  of  the  first  clause  may  be,  like  the  earth  (which) 
puts  forth  ;  or  the  idiom  may  resemble  that  in  vulgar  English  which  employs 
like  as  a  conjunction  no  less  than  a  preposition,  like  the  earth  puts  forth. 
(See  above,  ch.  8  :  23,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  153.)  The  studied 
assonance  of  PTJ'^:?,  n'^'^^in.  and  ri-rs"^ ,  is  retained  in  the  latest  versions,  after 
the  example  of  the  Vulgate,  which  has  germen,  germinat,  and  germinabit. 
By  praise  we  are  to  understand  the  manifestation  of  excellence  in  general, 
by  righteousness  that  of  moral  excellence  in  particular.  The  confusion  of 
these  terms  by  Vitringa  and  some  later  writers,  as  all  denoting  salvation,  is  as 
bad  in  its  effect  as  it  is  groundless  in  its  principle, — Knobel  thinks  it  proba- 
ble that  the  writer  had  by  this  time  heard  the  news  of  Cyrus's  conquests  in 
the  west,  by  which  his  somewhat  languid  hopes  had  been  revived.  But 
there  is  nothing  either  in  the  text  or  context  to  restrict  this  verse  to  the 
former  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  the  Babylonian  exile,  any  more  than  to 
their  future  restoration  to  the  Holy  Land.  The  glory  of  the  promise  is  its 
universality,  in  which  the  fulfilment  will  no  doubt  be  coextensive  with  the 
prophecy  itself. 


404  C  II  x\  P  T  E  R    L  X  I  I . 


CHAPTER    LXII. 

The  words  of  the  great  Deliverer  are  continued  from  the  foregoing 
chapter.  He  will  not  rest  until  the  glorious  change  in  the  condition  of  his 
people  is  acconriplished,  v.  1.  They  shall  he  recognised  by  kings  and 
nations  as  the  people  of  Jehovah,  vs.  2,  3.  She  who  seemed  to  be  for- 
saken is  still  his  spouse,  vs.  4,  5.  The  Church  is  required  to  watch  and 
pray  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise,  vs.  6,  7.  God  has  sworn  to  protect 
her  and  supply  her  wants,  vs.  8,  9.  Instead  of  a  single  nation,  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth  shall  flow  unto  her,  v.  10.  The  good  news  of  salvation 
shall  no  longer  be  confined,  but  universally  diffused,  v.  11.  The  glory  of 
the  church  is  the  redemption  of  the  world,  v.  12. 

V.  1.  For  Zion's  sake  I  will  not  he  still,  and  for  Jerusalem's  sake  I 
will  not  rest,  until  her  righteousness  go  forth  as  brightness,  and  her  salva- 
tion as  a  lamp  (that)  burneth.  Hitzig  argues  from  the  absence  of  the  copu- 
lative particle,  that  this  is  the  beginning  of  a  new  discourse,  and  that  if  the 
Prophet  be  the  speaker  here,  he  cannot  be  the  speaker  in  the  two  preceding 
verses.  Both  these  conclusions  are  unfounded  ;  since  the  particle  is  fre- 
quently omitted  where  the  same  svibject  is  still  treated,  and  in  the  same 
manner.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Prophet  constantly  assumes  the  person 
and  expresses  the  feelings  of  different  characters  in  this  great  drama,  without 
any  express  intimation  of  the  change  in  the  text  itself.  Kimchi  follows  the 
Targum  in  explaining  this  verse  as  the  language  of  Jehovah,  who,  as  J.  D. 
Michaelis  thinks,  is  here  replying  to  the  thanksgiving  of  the  church  in  the 
foresoins:  verses.  The  rest  and  silence  must  be  then  understood  to  denote 
inaction  and  indifference,  as  in  ch.  42  :  14.  In  like  manner  Grotius  makes 
it  a  specific  promise  of  Jehovah  that  he  will  not  rest  until  Cyrus  is  victo- 
rious. Cocceius  supposes  the  Messiah  to  be  speaking,  and  assuring  his 
people  of  his  intercession.  Henderson  also,  on  the  ground  of  the  frequency 
with  which  the  Redeemer  is  thus  abruptly  introduced  by  our  Prophet,  sup- 
poses the  Messiah  to  be  here  represented  as  interesting  himself  for  the  pros- 
perity of  Zion,  and  assuring  her  that  through  his  mediatorial  intercession  the 
Jews  shall  be  restored  to  their  standing  in  the  church  of  God.  Vitringa 
thinks  it  clear  from  the  analogy  of  v.  6,  that  the  silence  here  prohibited  is 
that  of  Zion's  watchmen  or  the  rulers  of  the  church,  of  whom  he  accord- 


CHAPTER    LXII.  405 

ingly  makes  up  a  chorus  in  accordance  with  his  favourite  theatrical  hypo- 
thesis. A  simpler  and  more  ohvious  sense  is  the  one  now  commonly 
adopted,  that  the  Prophet  himself  declares  his  resolution  not  to  cease  from 
the  prediction  of  Zion's  future  glory,  as  Forerius  supposes,  but  according  to 
the  general  opinion,  from  prayer  to  God  on  her  behalf.  Eichhorn  absurdly 
ascribed  the  passage  to  a  Jew  in  Palestine  who  wrote  it  on  hearing  of  the 
edict  by  Cyrus  for  the  restoration  of  the  exiles.  Perhaps  the  most  satisfac- 
tory conclusion  is,  that  if  the  Prophet  here  speaks  of  himself,  he  also  speaks  by 
implication  of  his  associates  and  successors  in  the  office,  not  excluding  Christ 
as  the  last  and  greatest  of  the  series  ;  so  that  several  of  the  exegetical  hypo- 
theses already  mentioned  may  in  this  way  be  combined  and  reconciled.  If 
an  exclusive  subject  must  be  chosen,  it  is  no  doubt  the  same  as  in  the  first 
verse  of  the  foregoing  chapter.  The  sense  of  righteousness  and  salvation  is 
the  same  as  in  ch.  61  ;  10  and  elsewhere.  By  a  singular  change  of  the 
abstract  to  the  concrete,  the  Vulgate  has  Justus  ejus  et  salvator  ejus. — The 
going  forth  here  mentioned  is  the  same  as  in  Ps.  19  :  6,  7  ;  and  brightness,  or 
as  Lowth  translates  it,  strong  light,  may  specifically  signify  the  dawn  of  day 
or  the  rising  of  the  sun  as  in  Prov.  4  :  18.  Lowth's  version  of  the  parallel 
expression  (blazing  torch)  is  stronger  than  the  common  version,  but  adheres 
less  closelv  to  the  form  of  the  oriffinal. 

V.  2.  yind  nations  shall  see  thy  righteousness,  and  all  kings  thy  glory  ; 
and  there  shall  be  called  to  thee  a  new  name,  which  the  mouth  of  Jehovah 
shall  utter  (or  pronounce  distinctly).  Here  again  the  Vulgate  applies  the 
abstract  terms  to  Christ,  by  rendering  them  jusfum  tuum,  inclytum  tuum. 
Grotius  retains  this  inaccurate  translation,  but  applies  the  epithets  to  Cyrus, 
as  the  illustrious  patron  of  the  Jews,  and  at  the  same  time  a  type  of  Christ. 
The  substitution  o^ glory  for  salvation  does  not  seem  to  be  regarded  by  any 
of  the  modern  writers  as  a  proof  that  salvation  means  glory,  although  quite 
as  clear  as  that  righteousness  means  salvation.  The  mention  of  kings  is 
intended  to  imply  the  submission  even  of  the  highest  ranks  to  this  new 
power.  (Compare  ch.  49:  7,  23.  52  :  15.)  Vitringa's  explanation  of  ix'^ 
as  meaning  to  experience  or  to  know  in  a  spiritual  sense,  at  once  perverts 
the  Prophet's  meaning,  and  enfeebles  his  expression.  The  idea  evidently  is 
that  they  shall  witness  it  and  stand  astonished. — The  nciv  name  may  be  that 
which  is  afterwards  stated  in  v.  4,  or  the  expression  may  be  understood 
more  generally  as  denoting  change  of  condition  for  the  better.  (See  above, 
ch.  1  :  26.  60  :  14,  and  compare  Jer.  3  :  16.  33  :  16.  Ezek.  48:  35.  Rev. 
2:17.  3:12.)  Some  one  quoted  by  Vitringa  supposes  an  allusion  to  the 
change  in  the  name  of  the  chosen  people  from  Jew  to  Christian  ;  but  the 
former  name  is  still  applied  to  the  spiritual  Israel,  in  Rom.  2  :  9  and  Rev. 
2:  9.     (See  below,  on  ch.  65  :  15.)     J,  D.  Michaclis  supposes  an  allusion 


406  CHAPTERLXII. 

to  the  oriental  practice  of  imposing  new  names  upon  towns  which  have  been 
ruined  and  rebuilt.  The  translation  of  the  last  verb  by  Lowth  (^shalljlx 
upon  thee)  and  by  JXoyes  (^shall  give  thee)  does  not  convey  its  exact  sense, 
which,  according  to  the  lexicons  is  that  of  pronouncing  or  uttering  distinctly, 
though  the  common  version  (shall  na?7ie)  is  justified  by  usage.  (Com[)are 
JNuin.  1:17.  1  Chron.  I'i  :  31.  Amos  6:1.)  Henderson  finds  no  difficulty 
in  admitting  that  this  clause  is  not  to  be  understood  of  a  mere  name,  but 
has  special  reference  to  state  and  character,  according  to  the  common  idiom 
by  which  any  thing  is  said  to  be  called  what  it  really  is.  Is  it  absolutely 
certain  then  that  Israel,  Jerusalem,  and  Zion,  are  in  all  cases  strictly  national 
and  local  designations,  and  that  they  never  have  respect  to  state  and  cha- 
racter rather  than  to  natural  descent  or  geographical  position  ? 

V.  3.  And  thou  shall  be  a  croicn  of  beauty  in  Jehovah^s  hand,  and  a 
diadem  of  royalty  in  the  palm  of  thy  God.  The  only  difficulty  in  this  verse 
has  respect  to  the  crown's  being  twice  emphatically  placed  in  the  hand  and 
not  upon  the  head.  Aben  Ezra  refers  to  the  practice  of  wearing  wreaths 
and  circlets  on  the  arms;  but  the  text  speaks  expressly  of  the  hand  and  of 
the  palm,  and  both  the  ornaments  described  are  such  as  were  worn  upon 
tiie  head.  Some  of  the  older  writers  quote  Suetonius's  account  of  the 
athletae  as  wearing  the  Olympic  crown  upon  the  head  and  carrying  the 
Pythian  in  the  hand  ;  but  this,  as  RosenmiiUer  well  says,  was  a  mere  act 
of  necessity,  and  what  is  here  said  has  respect  to  royal  not  athletic  crowns. 
Ewald  agrees  with  Brenllus  in  supposing  that  Jehovah  Is  here  represented 
as  holding  the  crown  in  his  hand  to  adn)lre  it ;  Coccelus  and  Ewald,  for 
the  purpose  of  exhibiting  it  toothers;  Piscator,  for  the  purpose  of  crowning 
himself.  J.  D.  Michaelis  takes  in  the  hand  of  God  to  mean  at  his  disposal, 
or  bestowed  by  him.  This  is  a  good  sense  in  itself;  but  upon  whom  could 
Zion  or  Jerusalem  be  thus  bestowed  ?  Hltzig  and  Henderson  think  it  per- 
fectly obvious  that  it  would  be  incongruous  to  place  the  crown  upon 
Jehovah's  head  ;  and  as  it  could  not  be  placed  upon  the  ground,  as  in  ch. 
28  :  1,  the  only  place  remaining  was  the  hand!  Gesenius  understands  the 
hand  of  God  to  mean  his  power  or  protection,  w  hich  approaches  nearly  to 
Vitrlnga's  explanation  of  the  phrase  as  meaning  he  shall  hold  it  fast  or  keep 
it  safe.  (Compare  Rev.  3  :  II.)  Maurer  gives  the  same  sense  to  the 
phrase,  but  connects  it  with  the  subject  of  the  verse,  and  not  with  the  figure 
of  a  crown  ;  as  if  it  had  been  said,  under  his  protection  thou  shalt  be  a  crown 
of  beauty  and  a  dUidcni  of  royalty. — Lowth's  version  of  tlie  last  phrase  in 
the  grasp  of  thy  God  is  vigorous  but  inexact.  The  true  sense  is  the  one 
expressed  by  Henderson  {the  palm).  The  original  combination  of  two 
nouns  is  more  expressive  than  the  adjective  construction  into  which  it  is 
resolved  by  most  translators.  The  beautiful  crown  of  Lowth  and  the  magni- 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  I  1 .  407 

Jicent  crown  of  Noyes,  are  much  inferior  to  the  literal  translation,  crown  of 
beauty  or  of  glory,  and  not  required  by  the  parallelism,  since  the  cor- 
responding phrase  strictly  means  a  diadtm  of  royalty.  According  to  Gataker 
the  last  word  is  added  to  distinguish  the  t]"':::  here  mentioned  from  the  sacer- 
dotal turban  or  mitre. 

V.  4.  JVo  more  shall  it  be  called  to  thee  (shall  thou  be  called)  Azubah 
(Forsakeii),  and  thy  land  shall  no  more  be  called  Shemamah  (^Desolate^  ; 
but  thou  shalt  be  called  Hephzibah  {jny  delight  is  in  her),  and  thy  land 
Beulah  (^Married),  for  Jehovah  delights  in  thee,  and  thy  land  shall  be 
married.  The  joyful  change  of  condition  is  further  expressed  in  the  Pro- 
phet's favourite  manner,  by  significant  names.  The  common  version  not 
only  mars  the  beauty  of  the  passage,  but  rendeis  it  in  some  degree  unintel- 
ligible to  the  English  reader,  by  translating  the  first  two  names  and  retaining 
the  others  in  their  Hebrew  dress.  It  is  obvious  that  all  four  should  be 
treated  alike,  i.  e.  that  all  the  Hebrew  forms  should  be  retained,  or  none. 
Henderson  prefers  the  latter  method  on  the  ground  that  "  the  names  are 
merely  symbolical  and  will  never  be  employed  as  proper  names."'  It  is 
probable,  however,  that  they  were  all  familiar  to  the  Jews  as  female  names  in 
real  life.  This  we  know  to  have  been  the  case  with  two  of  them  :  the  mother 
of  Jehoshaphat  was  named  Azubah  (1  Kings  22  :  42),  and  the  mother  of  Ma- 
nasseh  Hephzibah  (2  Kings  21  :  1 ).  It  is  better  therefore  to  retain  the  Hebrew 
forms,  in  order  to  give  them  an  air  of  reality  as  proper  names,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  render  them  intelligible  by  translation.  In  the  last  clause  there 
is  reference  to  the  primary  meaning  of  the  verb,  viz.  that  of  owning  or 
possessing;  and  as  the  inhabitants  of  towns  are  sometimes  called  in  Hebrew 
their  possessors,  D'^^y^  a  noun  derived  from  this  very  verb  (Josh.  24  :  11. 
Judg.  9:2.  2  Sam.  21:12  compared  with  2  Sam.  2:4),  its  use  here 
would  suggest,  as  at  least  one  meaning  of  the  promise,  thy  land  shall  be 
inhabited,  and  so  it  is  translated  in  the  Targum. 

V.  5.  For  (as)  a  young  man  marrieth  a  virgin,  (so)  shall  thy  sons 
marry  thee,  and  (xnlh)  the  joy  of  a  bridegroom  over  a  bride  shall  thy  God 
rejoice  over  thee.  The  particles  of  comparison  are  omitted  as  in  Jer.  17  :  21. 
Perhaps  it  would  be  more  correct  to  say  that  the  comparison  is  only  an 
implied  one,  and  that  the  strict  translation  is,  '  a  young  man  marrieth  ?* 
virgin,  thy  sons  shall  marry  thee,'  leaving  the  copula  and  so  to  be  suggested 
by  the  context.  So  in  the  other  clause  there  is  no  absolute  need  of 
assuming  an  ellipsis  ;  since  the  Hebrew  idiom  admits  of  such  expressions- 
as  joying  the  joy  o[  a.  bridegroom,  just  as  we  may  say  in  English  a  man  lives 
the  life  of  a  saint,  or  dies  the  death  of  the  righteous,  both  which  combina- 


408  CHAPTER    LXII. 

tions  occur  in  our  translation  of^the  Bible.  (Gal.  2  :  20.  Num.  23  :  10.) 
In  order  to  avoid  the  seeming  incongruity  of  a  mother's  being  married  to  her 
sons,  Lowih  reads  T(7:2  Uiy  Builder  or  Founder ;  an  emendation  which  J.  D. 
JVIichaelis  rejects  in  his  notes  upon  Lowth's  Lectures,  but  adopts  in  his  trans- 
lation of  Isaiah.  To  Gesenius's  objection,  that  the  pluralis  majestaticus  is 
construed  with  a  verb  in  the  singular,  Henderson  conclusively  replies  by 
citing  Gen.  20  :  13.  35  :  7.  2  Sam.  7  :  23.  The  true  objection  to  the 
change  is  that  it  is  not  necessary.  The  solution  of  the  difficulty  in  the 
common  text  is  afforded  by  the  explanation  already  given  of  the  strict  sense 
of  '^3  and  the  usage  of  the  derivative  noun  ^'■i^_ .  As  '?2Pi  in  v.  4  really 
means  thou  shall  be  inhabited,  so  "i^^::"]  here  conveys  the  same  idea  as  well 
as  that  of  marriage,  and  thy  sons  has  reference  not  to  the  latter  but  the 
former  sense.  Vitringa  gives  substantially  the  same  explanation,  when  he 
says  that  the  Prophet  mixes  two  distinct  metaphors  in  one  expression. 

Vs.  6,  7.  On  thy  walls,  oh  Jerusalem,  I  have  set  watchmen  ;  all  the  day 
and  all  the  night  long  they  shall  not  be  silent.  Ye  that  remind  Jehovah,  let 
there  be  no  rest  to  you,  and  give  no  rest  to  him,  until  he  establish  and  until 
he  place  Jerusalem  a  praise  in  the  earth.  According  to  Vitringa,  the  pro- 
phetic chorus  is  here  relieved  by  an  ecclesiastical  one;  and  as  the  first  words 
do  not  well  suit  this  imaginary  speaker,  he  removes  all  difficulty  by  sup- 
plying thus  saith  Jehovah.  To  the  more  obvious  supposition  that  Jehovah 
is  himself  the  speaker  he  makes  a  very  singular  objection,  viz.  that  the 
Prophet  would  hardly  have  introduced  God  as  speaking  for  so  short  a  time. 
According  to  the  Targum  and  the  Rabbins,  he  is  here  represented  as 
appointing  angels  to  keep  watch  over  the  ruined  walls  of  Zion.  Ewald 
adopts  a  similar  interpretation,  and  refers  to  Zech.  1  :  12—17,  upon  which 
the  Jewish  exposition  may  be  founded.  Gesenius  understands  these  as  the 
words  of  the  Prophet  himself,  and  by  watchmen,  devout  Jews  among  the 
ruins  of  Jerusalem  awaiting  the  return  of  the  exiles,  and  praying  to  God  for 
it.  For  this  limitation  of  the  passage  to  Jerusalem  in  ruins  and  to  the 
period  of  the  exile  there  is  not  the  least  foundation  in  the  text.  The  promise 
is  a  general  one,  or  rather  the  command  that  those  who  are  constituted 
guardians  of  the  church  should  be  importunate  in  prayer  to  God  on  her 
behalf.  D"in"^3TEri  admits  of  three  interpretations,  all  consistent  with  Isaiah's 
usage.  In  ch.  36  :  3,  22  it  seems  to  mean  an  official  recorder  or  historio- 
grapher. In  ch.  66  :  3  it  means  one  burning  incense  as  a  memorial  obla- 
tion. Hence  !t;i^^>?  the  name  used  in  the  law  of  Moses  to  denote  such  an 
offering.  (See  Lev.  2  :  2.  5  :  12.  24  :  7.  Num.  5  :  26.)  In  ch.  43  :  26 
the  verb  means  to  remind  God  of  something  which  he  seems  to  have  for- 
gotten ;  and  as  this  is  an  appropriate  description  of  importunate  intercession, 


CHAPTERLXII.  409 

it  is  here  entitled  to  the  preference.  Gesenius  speaks  of  a  behef  in  the 
effect  of  such  entreaties  as  pecuhar  to  the  ancient  Orientals  ;  but  our  Lord 
himself  expressly  teaches  it  (Luke  18  :  1),  and  Tertullian  finely  says  of  \t, 
haec  vis  Deo  grata  est. 

V.  8.  Sworn  hath  Jehovah  by  his  right  hand  and  by  his  arm  of 
strength,  If  I  give  (i.  e.  I  will  not  give)  thy  corn  any  more  as  food  to  thine 
enemies,  and  if  the  sons  of  the  outland  shall  drink  thy  new  ivine  which  thou 
hast  laboured  in  (I  am  not  God).  On  the  elliptical  formula  of  swearing, 
see  above,  on  cb.  22 :  14,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  69.  The  declaration 
though  conditional  in  form  is  in  fact  an  absolute  negation.  In  swearing  by 
his  hand  and  arm,  the  usual  symbols  of  strength,  he  pledges  his  omnipo- 
tence for  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise :  '  As  sure  as  I  am  almighty,  thou 
shalt  suffer  this  no  more.' — For  the  true  sense  of  ^3.j"^:3,  see  above,  on 
eh.  56  :  3. 

V.  9.  For  those  gathering  it  shall  eat  it  and  shall  praise  Jehovah,  and 
those  collecting  it  shall  drink  it  in  my  holy  courts  (or  in  the  courts  of 
my  sanctuary).  The  ^'3  is  not  directly  equivalent  to  but,  as  some  explain  it, 
but  retains  its  proper  meaning,  in  relation  to  an  intermediate  thought  not 
expressed.  As  if  he  had  said,  it  shall  not  be  so,  or,  it  shall  be  far  other- 
wise, because  those  gathering,  etc.  Lowlh  has  they  that  reap  the  harvest 
and  they  that  gather  the  vintage,  which,  although  correct  in  sense,  is  not  a 
version  but  a  paraphrase.  The  indefinite  it  takes  the  place  both  of  corn 
and  wine,  but  all  ambiguity  is  removed  by  the  use  of  the  verbs  eat  and 
drink.  Gesenius  and  Rosenmiiller  agree  with  Grotius  and  the  other  early 
writers  in  supposing  an  allusion  to  the  sacrificial  feasts  of  the  Mosaic  law. 
(See  Lev.  19:23-25.  Deut.  12:  17,  18.  14:23.)  But  Hitzig  and 
Knobel  refer  what  is  here  said  simply  to  the  sacerdotal  standing  to  be  occu- 
pied by  Israel  in  reference  to  the  gentiles.  (See  above  on  ch.  61  :  6.)  To  the 
former  supposition  Knobel  objects  that  the  Levitical  feasts  had  exclusive 
reference  to  the  tithes  and  first-fruits,  whereas  the  promise  here  is  universal. 
Tliis  appears  to  be  a  needless  refinement,  and  is  wholly  insufficient  to  explain 
away  the  obvious  allusion  in  the  terms  of  the  promise  to  the  ancient  institu- 
tions of  the  law.  That  these,  however,  are  but  types  and  emblems  of 
abundance,  and  security,  and  liberty  of  worship,  is  acknowledged  even  by 
that  school  of  interpreters  supposed  to  be  most  strenuous  in  favour  of  attaching 
to  these  promises  their  strictest  sense.  Thus  Henderson,  instead  of  urging,  as 
consistency  might  seem  to  require,  that  the  language  of  this  passage,  like 
that  of  ch.  60,  "must  be  literally  explained,"  interprets  it  as  meaning  that 
"the  enemies  of  Israel  having  all  been  swept  away  by  the  powerful  judg- 
ments of  God,  the  most  perfect  tranquillity  shall  reign  throughout  the  land, 


410  CHAPTER    LXII. 

and  those  who  may  go  up  to  worship  at  Jerusalem  shall  enjoy  unmolested 
the  fruit  of  their  labour."  Here  again  we  may  perceive,  although  unable 
to  reduce  to  rule,  the  exercise  of  a  large  discretion  in  determining  what  shall 
and  what  shall  not  be  strictly  understood.  The  literal  Jerusalem,  with  its 
temple  and  its  courts,  and  literal  corn  and  wine,  appear  to  be  intended  ; 
but  for  aught  that  appears,  the  eating  and  drinking  in  the  courts  of  that 
temple  is  a  mere  figure  for  exemption  from  annoyance  and  loss  while  present 
there  for  worship. 

V.  10.  Pass,  pass  through  the  gates,  clear  the  ivay  of  the  people,  raise 
high,  raise  high  the  highway,  free  (it)  from  stones,  raise  a  banner  (or  a 
signal)  over  the  nations.  Vitringa  puts  these  words  into  the  mouth  of  his 
prophetic  chorus  ;  Maurer  thinks  they  may  be  uttered  by  the  watchmen  of 
V.  6  ;  but  most  interpreters  appear  to  be  contented  with  the  obvious  hypo- 
thesis that  Isaiah  is  here  speaking  in  the  name  of  God.  As  to  the  object 
of  address,  Eichhorn  supposes  it  to  be  the  Jews  still  lingering  among  the 
ruins  of  the  Holy  City  ;  Maurer,  the  remaining  population  of  that  city,  which 
he  seems  to  think  considerable;  Gesenius,  the  exiled  Jews  in  Babylon  and 
other  lands  ;  Henderson,  "the  inhabitants  of  the  cities  that  may  lie  in  the 
way  of  the  returning  Israelites."  The  readiness  with  which  these  inter- 
preters accommodate  the  terms  of  the  text  to  their  several  hypotheses  may 
show  how  little  ground  there  is  for  any  definite  conclusion,  and  thus  serve 
to  recommend  the  hypothesis  of  Hitzig,  that  the  order  is  supposed  to  be 
given  to  those  whose  duty  it  is  to  execute  it.  Another  subject  of  dispute  is 
the  direction  of  the  march  required.  According  to  Rosenmiiller,  Maurer, 
and  Henderson,  '  pass  through  the  gates  '  means,  go  out  of  them  ;  according 
to  Gesenius  and  others,  go  into  them.  It  means  neither  one  nor  the  other, 
but  go  through  them,  leaving  the  direction  to  be  gathered  from  the  context, 
which,  combined  with  the  analogy  of  ch.  57  :  14,  makes  it  probable  that 
what  is  here  described  is  the  entrance  of  the  nations  into  Zion  or  the  church, 
an  event  so  frequently  and  fully  set  forth  in  the  preceding  chapters.  The 
use  of  the  term  0*53^  in  the  last  clause  is  so  favourable  to  this  exposition,  or 
at  least  so  adverse  to  the  supposition  that  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from 
Babylon  is  here  intended,  that  Gesenius,  in  order  to  evade  this  difficulty,  has 
recourse  to  an  expedient  which  he  would  have  laughed  to  scorn  if  used  in 
vindication  of  the  truth  of  prophecy.  This  is  the  explanation  of  Q'^^as  as 
meaning  tribes,  or  more  specifically  those  of  Israel,  on  the  authority  as  he 
alleges  of  Deut.  32  :  8.  33  :  3,  19.  Nothing  but  extreme  exegetical  neces- 
sity could  warrant  this  interpretation  of  the  word  here,  if  it  were  true  that 
Moses  so  employed  it.  But  this  very  fact  is  still  more  doubtful  than  the 
one  which  it  is  called  in  to  confirm,  or  rather  it  is  still  more  certain  that 
0''5S2)  in  Deuteronomy  denotes  the  gentiles  than  it  is  in  this  case.      On  the 


CH  A  P  T  E  R    LXl  I.  411 

other  hand,  the  singular  form  cs  is  used  repeatedly  in  these  very  prophecies 
to  signify  the  gentiles  or  mankind  at  large.  (See  above,  ch.  42  :  5.  49  :  8.) 
It  may  therefore  be  alleged  in  opposition  to  the  views  which  have  been 
quoted,  with  as  much  plausibility  at  least,  that  this  is  not  a  prediction  of 
the  former  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon,  or  of  their  future  restora- 
tion from  the  ends  of  the  earth,  but  of  the  increase  of  the  church  or  chosen 
people  by  the  accession  of  the  gentiles.  The  gates  are  then  the  gates  of 
the  ideal  Zion  or  Jerusalem,  the  passage  is  an  inward  not  an  outward 
passage,  and  the  exhortation  of  the  text  is  one  to  all  concerned,  or  all  who 
have  the  opportunity  to  take  away  obstructions  and  facilitate  their  entrance. 
The  argument  in  favour  of  the  reference  to  Babylon,  derived  from  the  analogy 
of  ch.  57  :  19,  lies  equally  against  the  hypothesis  of  Henderson,  who  cannot 
consistently  repel  it,  as  we  do,  by  appealing  to  our  uniform  assertion  that  the 
Babylonish  exile  is  referred  to  only  as  a  signal  example  of  deliverance. 
What  is  said  in  one  place,  therefore,  with  acknowledged  reference  to  Babylon 
proves  nothing  where  the  same  generic  terms  are  used  without  any  trace  of 
local  allusion.  The  verb  ^bpo  ,  which  is  ambiguous  (compare  ch.  5  :  2  and 
2  Sam.  16  :  6),  is  here  determined  by  the  addition  of  the  phrase  '|3i<.^ ,  in 
which  the  noun  is  used  as  a  collective.  In  the  last  clause,  some  explain 
^?  with  the  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  as  simply  meaning  to,  others  with  J.  D. 
Michaelis  for.  Knobel  not  only  makes  it  perfectly  synonymous  with  hn , 
but  then  notes  this  imaginary  fact  as  one  proof  of  a  later  age.  The  most 
exact  and  at  the  same  time  most  poetical  idea  is  Luther's,  '  raise  the  banner 
high  above  the  nations  ;'  to  which  Hitzig  theoretically  acquiesces,  but  trans- 
lates the  preposition  for,  like  others. 

V.  11.  Behold,  Jehovah  has  caused  it  to  he  heard  to  the  end  of  the 
earth,  Say  ye  to  the  daughter  of  Zion,  behold,  thy  salvation  cometh, 
behold,  his  reward  is  with  him  and  his  hire  before  him.  There  is  some 
doubt  as  to  the  connexion  of  the  clauses.  It  may  be  questioned  whether 
the  verse  contains  the  words  uttered  by  Jehovah  to  the  end  of  the  earth, 
and  if  so,  whether  these  continue  to  the  end  of  the  verse,  or  only  to  the  third 
behold.  Hitzig  supposes  ^^''^'^P.  to  be  absolutely  used,  and  to  denote  that 
God  has  made  a  preclamation,  but  without  saying  what ;  after  which  the 
Prophet  goes  on  to  address  the  messengers  mentioned  in  ch.  40  :  9  and 
52  :  7.  But  as  the  verb  ?"''a1jf^  seems  to  require  an  object  after  it,  and 
as  the  words  immediately  succeeding  are  precisely  such  as  might  thus  bo 
uttered,  it  is  certainly  most  natural  to  understand  what  follows  as  the  words 
or  substance  of  the  proclamation.  It  has  also  been  made  a  question  whether 
the  pronoun  his  refers  to  Jehovah  or  to  the  nearest  antecedent,  salvation  ; 
and  if  the  latter,  whether  that  word  is  to  be  translated  saviour,  as  it  is  by 
Lowth  and  in  the  ancient  versions.    This  last  is  a  question  of  mere  form,  and 


412  CHAPTER    LXII. 

the  otliei'  of  but  little  exegetical  imi)ortance,  since  the  saviour  or  salvation 
meant  is  clearly  represented  elsewhere  as  identical  with  God  himself.  The 
last  clause  is  a  repetition  of  ch.  40  :  10,  and  if  ever  the  identity  of  thought, 
expression,  and  connexion,  served  to  indicate  identity  of  subject,  it  is  so  in 
this  case.  The  reader  therefore  may  imagine  the  inducement  which  could 
lead  even  Henderson  to  speak  of  the  two  places  as  "  strictly  parallel  in 
language,  though  the  advents  in  the  two  passages  are  different."  If  this  be 
so,  then  nothing  can  ever  be  inferred  from  similarity  of  language,  and  an 
unlimited  discretion  is  allowed  to  the  interpreter  to  parry  all  attacks  upon 
his  theory  by  stoutly  maintaining  a  diversity  of  subject  in  the  very  places 
where  the  opposite  appears  to  be  most  manifest.  Another  arbitrary  state- 
ment rendered  necessary  in  a  dozen  lines  by  the  determination  to  apply 
the  passage  to  the  future  restoration  of  the  Jews  to  Palestine,  is  that  "  the 
daughter  of  Zion  means  here  the  rightful  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  scattered 
over  the  face  of  the  earth,"  a  sense  which  even  this  interpreter  attaches  to 
the  words  in  this  place  only,  out  of  the  many  in  which  Isaiah  uses  them. 
But  while  these  violent  expedients  are  required  to  bring  the  passage  even 
into  seeming  application  to  the  future  restoration  of  the  Jews,  it  is,  if  possi- 
ble, still  more  inapplicable  to  their  former  restoration  from  the  Babylonish 
exile.  In  the  first  place,  w4iy  should  the  ends  of  the  earth  be  summoned 
to  announce  this  event  to  Zion  ?  Hitzig  replies,  as  we  have  seen  already, 
that  the  two  clauses  are  entirely  unconnected  ;  Knobel  more  boldly  explains 
end  of  the  earth  to  mean  "  the  end  of  the  oriental  world,  whose  west  end 
touched  the  Mediterranean  sea,  i.  e.  Palestine  "  1  Whether  a  theory 
requiring  such  contrivances  can  well  be  sound,  is  left  to  the  decision  of  the 
reader.  But  another  difficulty  in  the  way  of  this  interpretation  is  presented 
by  the  last  clause.  Even  supposing  that  the  old  opinion  as  to  this  clause 
is  the  true  one,  and  that  his  reward  means  that  which  he  bestows,  in  what 
sense  can  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon  be  represented  as  the 
coming  of  salvation  (or  a  saviour)  to  the  daughter  of  Zion,  bringing  a  reward  ? 
The  daughter  of  Zion  is  throughout  these  prophecies  the  suffering  person, 
and  the  object  of  encouraging  address.  Even  where  it  primarily  means  the 
city,  it  is  only  as  the  centre,  representative,  and  symbol  of  the  church  or 
chosen  people.  How  then  could  the  saviour  be  described  as  coming  to  his 
people,  bringing  themselves  with  him  as  a  recompense  for  what  they  had 
endured.  But  if,  for  reasons  given  in  expounding  ch.  40  :  10,  we  under- 
stand his  reward  as  meaning  that  which  he  receives,  what  constitutes  this' 
recompense  in  the  case  supposed  ?  The  image  then  presented  is  that  of 
Jehovah  coming  back  to  his  people,  and  bringing  his  people  with  him  as 
his  recompense.  The  incongruity  of  this  verse  with  the  Babylonian  theory 
was  either  overlooked  by  its  ablest  modern  champions,  or  occasioned  such 
laconic  comments  as  that  of  Rosenmiiller,  who  contents  himself  with  saying 


C  II  A  P  T  E  R    LXI  I.  413 

that  the  last  clause  has  already  been  explained  in  the  note  upon  ch.  40 :  10  ; 
while  Gesenius  slill  more  briefly  says,  "'  dieselben  Worle  40  :  10  ;"  and 
Maurer,  "eadem  verba  leginuis  40  :  10."  This  is  the  enlire  exposition  of 
the  whole  verse  by  these  three  distinguished  writers,  while  those  of  later 
date,  who  have  been  less  reserved,  have  found  themselves  driven  to  the 
forced  constructions  which  have  been  already  mentioned.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  plain  sense  of  the  words,  the  context  here,  and  the  analogy  of 
ch.  40  :  10,  are  all  completely  satisfied  by  the  hypothesis  that  the  Messiah 
(or  Jehovah)  is  here  described  as  coming  to  his  people,  bringing  with  him  a 
vast  multitude  of  strangers,  or  new  converts,  the  reward  of  his  own  labours, 
and  at  the  same  time  the  occasion  of  a  vast  enlargement  to  his  church.  At 
the  same  time,  let  it  be  observed  that  this  hypothesis  is  not  one  framed  for 
the  occasion,  without  reference  ;  or  even  in  opposition  to  the  previous  expla- 
nation of  passages  in  every  point  resembling  this,  but  one  suggested  at  the 
outset  of  the  book,  and  found  upon  comparison,  at  every  step  of  the  inter- 
pretation, to  be  more  satisfactory  than  any  other. 

V.  12.  And  they  shall  call  them  the  Holy  People,  the  redeemed  of 
Jehovah,  and  thou  shah  be  called  Denishah  {sought  for),  Ir-lo-neezahah 
{City  not  forsaken).  The  first  verb  is  indefinite,  they  (i.  e.  men)  shall 
call ;  hence  the  parallel  expression  has  the  passive  form.  On  the  con- 
struction and  the  idiomatic  use  of  call,  see  the  Earlier  Prophecies, 
p.  18.  The  distinction  here  so  clearly  made  by  the  use  of  the  second 
and  third  persons,  is  supposed  by  the  modern  Germans  to  be  that  between 
the  city  and  her  returning  citizens  ;  but  this,  as  we  have  seen  repeat- 
edly before,  involves  a  constant  vacillation  between  different  senses  of 
Jerusalem  and  Zion  in  the  foregoing  context.  The  only  supposition  which 
can  be  consistently  maintained,  is  that  it  always  means  the  city,  but  the 
city  considered  merely  as  a  representative  or  sign  of  the  whole  system  and 
economy  of  which  it  was  the  visible  centre.  The  true  distinction  is  between 
the  church  or  chosen  people  as  it  is,  and  the  vast  accessions  yet  to  be 
received  from  the  world  around  it.  Even  the  latter  shall  be  honoured  with 
the  name  of  Holy  People,  while  the  church  itself,  becoming  coextensive 
with  the  world,  shall  cease  to  be  an  object  of  contempt  or  disregard  to  God 
or  man.  The  sense  of  sought  for  seems  to  be  determined  by  the  parallel 
description  in  Jer.  30  :  14,  as  expressing  the  opposite  of  the  complaint  in 
ch.  49  :  14. — According  to  Henderson,  the  meaning  of  the  verse  is  that 
"  the  Jews  shall  now,"  i.  e.  after  their  restoration  to  their  own  land,  "  be  a 
holy  people,  redeemed  from  all  iniquity,  and  thronging  their  ancient  capita! 
for  religious  purposes."  The  only  prospect  opened  to  the  gentiles  in  the 
whole  prediction,  thus  expounded,  is  that  of  becoming  ploughmen,  shepherds, 
and  purveyors  to  the  favoured  nation. 


414  CHAPTERLXIIl, 


CHAPTER    LXIII. 

The  influx  of  the  gentiles  into  Zion  having  been  described  in  the  pre- 
ceding verses,  the  destruction  of  her  enemies  is  now  sublimely  represented 
as  a  sanguinary  triumph  of  Jehovah  or  the  Messiah,  vs.  1-6.  The  Prophet 
then  supposes  the  catastrophe  already  past,  and  takes  a  retrospective  view 
of  God's  compassions  towards  his  people,  and  of  their  unfaithfulness  during 
the  old  economy,  vs.  7-14.  He  then  assumes  the  tone  of  earnest  supplica- 
tion, such  as  might  have  been  offered  by  the  believing  Jews  when  all  seemed 
lost  in  the  destruction  of  their  commonwealth  and  temple,  vs.  15-19. 

V.  1.  Who  (is)  this  coming  from  Edom,  bright  (as  to  his)  garments  from 
Bozrnh,  this  one  adorned  in  his  apparel,  bending  in  the  abundance  of  his 
strength  1  I,  speaking  in  righteousness,  mighty  to  save.  Tlie  hypothesis 
that  this  is  a  detached  prophecy,  unconnected  with  what  goes  before  or  fol- 
lows, is  now  commonly  abandoned  as  a  mere  evasion  of  the  difficulty.  Hitzlg 
indeed  adheres  to  it  in  order  to  sustain  his  theory  as  to  the  gradual  composition 
of  the  book.  The  dramatic  form  of  the  description  is  recognised  by  modern 
writers,  without  the  awkward  supposition  of  a  chorus,  adopted  by  Vitringa  and 
Lowth.  It  is  not  necessary  even  to  introduce  the  people  as  a  party  to  the 
dialogue.  The  questions  may  be  naturally  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  Prophet 
himself.  Interpreters  are  much  divided  as  to  the  Edom  of  this  passage.  That 
it  is  not  merely  a  play  upon  the  meaning  of  the  name  (viz.  red),  is  clear  from 
the  mention  of  the  chief  town,  Bozrah.  The  reference  to  Rome,  whether 
the  Roman  Empire  or  the  Romish  Church,  is  purely  fanciful.  J.  D.  Michae- 
lis  consistently  applies  the  passage,  like  the  foregoing  context,  to  a  future 
event ;  but  Henderson  unexpectedly  pronounces  it  unjustifiable  "  to  apply 
it  to  any  future  judgments  to  be  inflicted  on  the  country  formerly  occupied 
by  the  Edomites."  His  own  opinion  is  that  "  the  object  of  the  Piophet  is 
to  deduce  an  argument  from  God's  dealings  with  his  ancient  people  in  favour 
of  his  graciously  regarding  them  in  their  then  distantly  future  dispersion." 
He  does  not  explain  why  this  is  any  less  "  unjustifiable  "  than  the  reference 
of  the  passage  to  a  '-'distantly  future"  event.  While  J.  D.  Michaelis  thus 
makes  both  the  threatening  and  the  promise  alike  future,  and  Henderson  makes 
one  distantly  future  and  the  other  distantly  past,  Knobel  makes  both  past,  and 
supposes  Jehovah  to  be  here  described  merely  as  coming  through  the  land 


CH  AP  T  E  R    LXIII.  415 

of  Edom  from  the  slaughter  of  the  nations  confederate  with  Croesus,  who 
had  just  been  overthrown  by  Cyrus  in  a  battle  near  Sardis.  With  these 
exceptions,  most  interpreters,  even  of  the  modern  German  school,  suj)pose 
Edom  to  be  here,  as  in  ch.  34,  the  representative  of  Israel's  most  inveterate 
enemies.  For  this  use  of  the  name,  see  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  560.  The 
connexion  with  what  goes  before,  as  Rosenmiiller  states  it,  is  that  the 
restored  Jews  might  apprehend  the  enmity  of  certain  neighbouring  nations, 
who  had  rejoiced  in  their  calamity  ;  and  that  the  prophecy  before  us  was 
intended  to  allay  this  apprehension.  y'^'zn  strictly  means  fermented,  then 
acetous,  sharp,  but  is  here  applied  to  vivid  colour,  like  the  Greek  6^v  XQco/iu. 
"ii^rj  properly  means  swollen,  inflated,  but  is  here  metaphorically  used  in 
the  sense  of  adorned,  or,  as  Vitringa  thinks,  terrible,  inspiring  awe.  For 
the  sense  of  the  word  nj'b: ,  see  above,  on  ch.  51  :  14.  Vitringa  understands 
it  to  mean  liere  the  restless  motion  of  one  not  yet  recovered  from  the 
excitement  of  a  conflict  ;  Gesenius,  the  tossing  or  throwing  back  of  the 
head  as  a  gesture  indicative  of  pride  ;  Hitzig,  the  leaning  of  the  head  to  one 
side  with  a  similar  effect.  The  Vulgate  version  (^gradiens)  conveys  too 
little.  Speaking  in  righteousness  is  understood  by  most  of  the  modern 
writers  in  the  sense  of  speaking  about  it  or  concerning  it,  in  which  case 
righteousness  must  have  the  sense  of  deliverance,  or  at  least  be  regarded  as 
its  cause.  It  is  much  more  natural,  however,  to  explain  the  phrase  as 
meaning,  I  that  speak  in  truth,  I  who  promise  and  am  able  to  perform. — 
The  terms  of  this  description  are  applied  in  Rev.  19  :  13  to  the  victorious 
Word  of  God,  a  name  which  has  apparently  some  reference  to  la'i^ . 

V.  2.  Why  (is  there)  redness  to  thy  raiment,  and  {why  are)  thy 
garments  like  {those  of)  one  treading  in  a  ivine-press  1  The  adjective  D^x 
is  here  used  substantively,  just  as  we  speak  of  a  deep  red  in  English.  Or 
the  word  here  employed  may  be  explained  as  the  infinitive  of  Cix  to  be  red. 
There  is  no  need,  in  any  case,  of  making  the  h  pleonastic  or  a  sign  of  the 
nominative  case,  with  Rosenmiiller  and  some  older  writers,  or  of  reading 
-oi-bi:  with  Lowth.  Twenty-one  manuscripts  and  one  edition  give  the 
noun  a  plural  form,  but  of  course  without  effect  upon  the  meaning.  The 
allusion  is  of  course  to  the  natural  red  wine  of  the  east,  that  of  some  vine- 
yards on  Mount  Lebanon,  according  to  J.  D.  Michaelis,  being  almost  black. 
The  PS  is  the  wine-press  properly  so  called,  as  distinguished  from  the  -p.'^ 
or  reservoir.  It  is  a  slight  but  effective  stroke  in  this  fine  picture,  that  the 
first  verse  seems  to  speak  of  the  stranger  as  still  at  a  distance,  whereas  in 
the  second  he  has  come  so  near  as  to  be  addressed  directly. 

V.  3.  The  press  1  have  trodden  by  myself,  and  of  the  nations  there  was 
not  a  man  with  me ;  and  I  will  tread  them  in  my  anger  and  trample  them  in 


416  CH  AP  T  E  II    LXIII. 

my  fury,  and  their  juice  shall  spirt  upon  my  garments,  and  all  my  vesture  I 
have  stained.  The  word  here  used  for  press  is  different  from  that  in  the 
foregoing  verse,  and  occurs  elsewhere  only  in  Hagg.  2  :  IG.  According  to 
its  seeming  derivation,  it  denotes  the  place  where  grapes  are  crushed  or 
broken,  as  p?  does  the  place  where  they  are  pressed  or  trodden.  The 
comparison  suggested  in  the  question  (v.  2)  is  here  carried  out  in  detail. 
Be'in"  asked  why  he  looks  like  the  treader  of  a  wine-press,  he  replies  that 
he  has  been  treading  one,  and  that  alone,  which  Rosenniiiller  understands 
to  mean  without  the  aid  of  labourers  or  servants.  The  meaning  of  the  figure 
is  then  expressed  in  literal  terms.  '  Of  the  nations  there  was  not  a  man  with 
me.'  This  expression  and  the  otherwise  inexplicable  alternation  of  the 
tenses  make  it  probable  that  two  distinct  treadings  are  here  mentioned,  one 
in  which  he  might  have  expected  aid  from  the  nations,  and  another  in  which 
the  nations  should  themselves  be  trodden  down  as  a  punishment  of  this 
ne<dect.  Or  the  futures  may  denote  merely  a  relative  futurity,  i.  e.  in  refer- 
ence to  the  act  first  mentioned.  The  more  general  opinion  is,  however, 
that  but  one  act  of  treading  is  here  mentioned,  and  that  the  nations  are 
themselves  represented  as  the  grapes.  In  order  to  make  this  appear  more 
natural,  Jarchi  and  Tremellius  explain  with  me  as  meaning  against  me,  or 
to  contend  with  me,  which  is  not  justified  by  usage.  The  most  satisfactory 
solution  seems  to  be  that  these  words  are  added  to  convey  the  idea  that  all 
the  nations  were  on  the  adverse  side,  none  on  that  of  the  conqueror.  The 
sense  will  then  be  not  that  they  refused  to  join  in  trampling  others,  but 
simply  that  they  were  among  the  trampled.  As  if  he  had  said,  I  trod  the 
press  alone,  and  all  the  nations,  without  exception,  were  trodden  in  it.  By 
all  the  nations  we  are  of  course  to  understand  all  but  God's  people.  The 
principle  of  this  limitation  is  recognised  by  Knobel,  though  he  makes  an 
absurd  application  of  it  by  supposing  the  exception  to  be  Cyrus  and  the 
Persians,  who  derived  no  aid  from  other  nations  in  the  overthrow  of  Croesus. 
Henderson  understands  it  as  implying  that  the  punishment  here  mentioned 
was  inflicted  upon  Edom  without  the  intervening  aid  of  any  foreign  power, 
which  he  thinks  was  verified  in  their  subjection  by  a  native  Jewish  con- 
queror, Hyrcanus.  The  meaning  given  to  n-^3  is  justified  by  the  use  of  the 
verb  in  Arabic  as  meaning  to  sprinkle.  tVxsn  is  a  mixed  form,  considered 
by  the  modern  Germans  as  a  proof  of  later  date ;  but  such  anomalies  are 
usually  introduced  by  slow  degrees,  and  may  for  the  most  part  be  traced 
back  to  certain  singularities  of  diction  in  the  older  books.  The  treading  of 
the  wine-press  alone  is  an  expression  often  applied  in  sermons  and  in  reli- 
gious books  and  conversation  to  our  Saviour's  sufferings.  This  application 
is  described  as  customary  in  his  own  time  by  Vitringa,  who  considers  it  as 
having  led  to  the  forced  exposition  of  the  whole  passage  by  the  Fathers  and 
Cocceius  as  a  description  of  Christ's  passion.     While  the  impossibility  of 


C  H  AP  T  ER    LXIII.  417 

such  a  sense  in  the  original  passage  cannot  be  too  strongly  stated,  there  is  no 
need  of  denying  that  the  figure  may  be  happily  acconiniodated  in  the  way 
suggested:  as  many  expressions  of  the  Old  Testament  may  be  applied  to 
different  objects  with  good  effect,  provided  we  are  careful  to  avoid  con- 
founding such  accommodations  with  the  strict  and  primary  import  of  the 
passage. 

V.  4.  For  the  day  of  vengeance  (is)  in  my  heart,  and  the  year  of  my 
redeemed  is  come.  For  the  sense  of  day  and  year  in  this  connexion,  see 
above,  on  ch.  61  :  2.  In  my  heart,  i.  e.  my  mind  or  purpose.  Some 
writers  needlessly  and  arbitrarily  change  7ny  redeemed  to  my  redemption. 
It  is  not  even  necessary  to  explain  the  participle  in  a  future  sense  (to  be 
redeemed),  since  their  redemption  was  as  firmly  settled  in  the  divine  pur- 
pose as  the  day  of  vengeance. 

V.  5.  And  Hook,  and  there  is  none  keeping ;  and  I  stand  aghast,  and 
there  is  none  sustaining ;  and  my  own  arm  saves  for  me,  and  my  fury  it 
sustains  me.  These  expressions  have  already  been  explained  in  ch.  59:  16. 
Hitzig's  idea  that  this  is  the  original,  and  that  a  quotation  from  memory,  and 
his  inference  that  this  is  the  older  composition,  are  alike  unfounded.  With 
equal  if  not  greater  plausibility  it  might  be  argued  from  the  greater  regularity 
and  finish  of  the  sentence  here,  that  it  is  an  improvement  on  the  other. 
Fury  here  takes  the  place  of  righteousness  in  ch.  59  :  16,  not  as  a  synonyme 
but  as  an  equivalent.  God's  wrath  is  but  the  executioner  and  agent  of  his 
justice.  Upon  either  he  might  therefore  be  described  as  exclusively  relying. 
The  present  form  is  used  in  the  translation,  on  account  of  the  uncertainty  in 
which  the  use  of  the  tenses  is  involved,  and  which  may  arise  in  part  from 
an  intentional  confusion  of  the  past  and  future  in  the  mind  of  one  who  had 
begun  a  great  work,  and  was  yet  to  finish  it. 

V.  6.  And  I  tread  the  nations  in  my  anger,  and  I  make  them  drunk  in 
my  wrath,  and  I  bring  down  to  the  earth  their  juice.  The  use  of  the  word 
tread  leads  to  the  resumption  of  the  figure  of  a  wine-press,  which  is 
employed  besides  this  passage  in  Lam.  1  :  15.  Joel  4  :  13.  Rev.  14  :  19,  20. 
For  D";}3'ii^!  I  tnake  them  drunk,  most  of  the  modern  writers  since  Cappellus 
read  Dtis-^*.  I  crush  them  ;  which  is  not  only  confirmed  by  many  manu- 
scripts and  some  editions,  as  well  as  by  the  Targum,  but  recommended  by 
its  suiting  the  connexion  belter.  This  very  circumstance,  however,  throws 
suspicion  on  the  emendation,  as  a  device  to  get  rid  of  a  difficulty.  In  order 
to  connect  the  common  reading  with  the  context,  we  have  only  to  assume  a 
mixture  of  metaphors,  such  as  we  continually  meet  with  in  Isaiah.    There 

27 


418  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  XI  I  I. 

is  no  need  of  going  with  Vitringa  to  the  extravagant  and  revolting  length 
of  supposing  that  the  nations  are  describe-d  as  rolling  in  their  own  blood  till 
it  gets  into  their  mouths  and  down  their  throats.  There  is  simjily  a  sudden 
change  of  figure,  which  is  not  only  common,  but  characteristic  of  Isaiah, 
notwithstanding  Gesenius's  paradoxical  denial. 

V.  7.    The  mercies  of  Jehovah  I  will  cause  to  he  remembered,  the  praises 

of  Jehovah  according  to  all  that  Jehovah  hath  done  for  us,  and  the  great 

goodness  to  the  house  of  Israel  lohich  he  hath  done  for  them,  according  to 

his  compassions  and  according  to  the  multitude  of  his  mercies.    The  sudden 

chano^e  of  tone  in  this  verse  has  of  course  Ifd  to  many  suppositions  as  to  its 

connexion  with  what  goes  before  and  follows.    The  easiest  expedient  is  the 

one  which  Lowth  adopts,  by  denying  all  immediate  connexion   with  what 

goes  before  ;  but  it  is  also  the  least  saiisflictory.     Evvald  begins  the  closing 

section  of  the  book  here,  and  thinks  it  quite  indubitable  that  events  had 

made   considerable   progress   between   the   dates  of  the  sixth  and  seventh 

verses.     The   prevalent  opinion   among  Christian   interpreters  is   that  we 

have  here  the  beginning  of  a  prophecy  relating  to  the  future  restoration  of 

Israel.     Even  Vitringa,  who  shows  little  partiality  to  this  hypothesis  in  the 

foregoing  chapters,  acquiesces  in  it  here.    His  arguments,  however,  only  go 

to  show  that  this  interpretation  is  better  than  the  one  which  applies  the 

passage  to  the  Babylonish  exile.     Lowth  simply  says  that  it  is  so,  without 

assi<i^ning  any   reason.     On   the  general   principle  assumed  throughout  our 

exposition  as  to  the  design  and  subject  of  these  prophecies,  a  more  general 

application  is  entitled  to  the  preference,  and  the  passage  must  be  understood 

as  relating  to  the  favours  experienced  and  the  sins  committed  by  the  chosen 

people  throughout  the  period  of  the  old  dispensation.     There  is  no  need  of 

assuming  any  speaker  but  the  Prophet  himself.     The  plural  form  mercies, 

may  be  intended  to  denote  abundance.    I  ivill  cause  to  be  retnembered,  may 

have  reference  to  men  ;  in  which  case  the  phrase  is  equivalent  to  celebrate, 

record,  or  praise.  But  as  these  acknowledgments  are  merely  preparatory  to 

a  prayer  that  God  would  renew  his  ancient  favours  to  them,  it  is  better  to 

understand  it  as  meaning,  I  will  cause  God  himself  to  remember,  or  remind 

him,  in  which  application  the  verb  is  often  used,  e.  g.  in  the  titles  of  Ps.  38 

and  70.    (See  Hengstenberg  on  the  Psalms,  vol.  II.  p.  293.)    There  is  no 

need  of  giving  to  nibnn  the  factitious  sense  of  praiseworthy  acts  or  virtues, 

as  the  Scpluagint  does  (^aQnag).   The  proper  sense  of  praises  is  appropriate 

and  sufficient.     For  the  sense  of  ^>3  and   -';5 ,  see  above  on  cli.  59  :  18. 

We  have  here  another  illustration  of  the  ease  with  which  the  parallelism 

may  be  urged  on  diflcreni  sides  of  the  same  question.     It  had  been  made  a 

question  whether  -"'J  -"i  is  governed  by  '"=tj<  or  by  ^3*3  .     The  former  is 


CHAPTER    LXIII.  419 

maintained  by  Maurer,  the  latter  by  Hitzig,  on  precisely  the  same  ground  : 
ita  postulante  parallelismo,  says  the  one — diess  vcrlangt  dtr  ParaUelismus, 
says  the  other. 

V.  8.  And  he  said,  Only  they  are  my  people,  (my)  children  shall  not 
lie  (or  deceive),  and  he  became  a  saviour  for  them.  To  the  general  acknow- 
ledgment of  God's  goodness  to  his  people,  there  is  now  added  a  specification 
of  his  favours,  beginning  with  the  great  distinguishing  favour  by  which  they 
became  what  they  were.  This  verse  is  commonly  explained  as  an  expres- 
sion of  unfounded  confidence  and  hope  on  God's  part,  surely  they  are  my 
people,  children  that  will  not  lie.  This  must  then  be  accounted  for  as 
anthropopathy  ;  but  although  the  occurrence  of  this  figure  in  the  Sciiptures 
is  indisputable,  it  is  comparatively  rare,  and  not  to  be  assumed  without 
necessity.  Besides,  the  explanation  just  referred  to  rests  almost  entirely 
on  the  sense  attached  to  T(X  as  a  mere  particle  of  asseveration.  Now,  in 
every  other  case  where  Isaiah  uses  it,  the  restrictive  sense  of  only  is  not 
admissible  merely,  but  necessary  to  the  full  force  of  the  sentence.  It  is 
surely  not  the  true  mode  of  interpretation,  to  assume  a  doubtful  definition 
for  the  sake  of  obtaining  an  unsatisfactory  and  offensive  sense.  Another 
advantage  of  the  strict  translation  is,  that  it  makes  the  Prophet  go  back  to 
the  beginning  of  their  course,  and  instead  of  setting  out  from  the  hopes 
which  God  expressed  after  the  choice  of  Israel,  records  the  choice  itself. 
Thus  understood,  the  first  clause  is  a  solemn  declaration  of  his  having  chosen 
Israel,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other  nations.  Only  they  (and  no  others)  are 
my  people.  The  objection  which  may  seem  to  arise  from  the  collocation  of 
"J?  with  n52n  rather  than  "'S^  ,  applies  only  to  the  occidental  idiom  ;  since  in 
Hebrew  a  qualifying  particle  is  often  attached  to  the  first  word  of  the  clause, 
even  when  it  is  more  closely  related  to  some  other.  But  even  if  the  force 
of  this  objection  were  allowed,  it  could  not  prove  that  r(X  must  here  be  taken 
in  a  sense  which  does  not  properly  belong  to  it,  but  only  that  it  must  be 
made  to  qualify  "^^as? .  The  sense  will  then  be,  they  are  only  my  people, 
i.  e.  nothing  else  ;  which,  although  less  satisfactory  than  the  other  sense,  is 
still  far  better  than  the  one  which  makes  Jeliovah  here  express  a  groundless 
expectation. — The  second  clause  may  possibly  mean,  (their)  sons  shall  not 
deal  falsely,  i.  e.  degenerate  from  their  fathers'  faith.  In  either  case,  the 
future  is  the  future  of  command,  as  in  the  decalogue,  not  that  of  mere  pre- 
diction. Gesenius  explains  ^'^p^a^  as  an  elliptical  expression,  to  be  supplied 
by  the  analogy  of  Ps.  44  :  IS  and  89  :  34  ;  but  it  is  simpler  to  understand 
it  absolutely,  as  in  I  Sam.  15  :  29. — The  English  Version,  so  he  teas  their 
saviour,  is  a  needless  departure  from  the  simplicity  of  the  original,  and 
aggravates  the  misinterpretation  of  the  first  clause,  by  suggesting  that  he 


420  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  I  I  I . 

was  ihcir  saviour  because  he  believed  they  would  be  faithful.  The  verse 
in  Hebrew  simply  states  two  facts,  without  intimating  any  causal  relation 
between  them.     He  chose  them  and  he  saved  them. 

V.  9.  In  all  their  enmity  he  ivas  not  an  enemy,  and  the  angel  of  his  face 
(or  presence)  saved  them,  in  his  love  and  in  his  sjjaring  mercy  he  redeemed 
them,  and  he  took  them  up  and  carried  them  all  the  days  of  old.  The  6rst 
clause  is  famous  as  the  subject  of  discordant  and  even  contradictory  interpreta- 
tions. These  have  been  multiplied  by  the  existence  of  a  doubt  as  to  the  text. 
The  IMasora  notes  this  as  one  of  fifteen  places  in  which  xb  not  is  written 
by  mistake  for  ib  to  him  or  it.  Another  instance  of  the  same  alleged  error 
in  the  text  of  Isaiah  occurs  in  ch.  9  :  2.  (See  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p. 
J  56.)  Rabbi  Jonah,  according  to  Solomon  Ben  Melek,  understands  the 
amended  text  to  mean  that  in  all  their  distress  they  still  had  a  rock  or 
refuge,  making  ^^  synonymous  with  "i^:i ,  which  is  wholly  unsustained  by 
usage.  A  far  better  sense  is  that  of  Aben  Ezra,  that  in  all  their  distress 
there  was  distress  to  him,  or  as  the  English  Version  renders  it,  in  all  their 
affliction  he  was  afflicted.  This  explanation,  with  the  text  on  which  it  is 
founded,  and  which  is  exhibited  by  a  number  of  manuscripts  and  editions, 
is  approved  by  Luther,  Vitringa,  Clericus,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  Umbreit,  Hende- 
werk,  and  Knobel.  It  is  favoured,  not  only  by  the  strong  and  affecting 
sense  wiiich  it  yields,  but  by  the  analogy  of  Judges  10  :  16.  11:7,  in  one 
of  which  places  the  same  phrase  is  used  to  denote  human  suffering,  and  in 
the  other  God  is  represented  as  sympathizing  with  it.  The  objections  to  it 
are,  that  it  gratuitously  renders  necessary  another  anthropopathic  explana- 
tion ;  that  the  natural  collocation  of  the  words,  if  this  were  the  meaning, 
would  be  "ib  is  ,  as  in  2  Sam.  1  :  26  ;  that  the  negative  is  expressed  by  all 
the  ancient  versions  ;  and  that  the  critical  presumption  is  in  favour  of  the 
Kethib,  or  textual  reading,  as  the  more  ancient,  which  the  Masorites  merely 
corrected  in  the  margin,  without  venturing  to  change  it,  and  which  ought  not 
to  be  now  abandoned,  if  a  coherent  sense  can  be  put  upon  it,  as  it  can  in 
this  case.  Jerome,  in  his  version,  makes  the  clause  assert  the  very  opposite 
of  that  sense  which  is  usually  put  upon  the  marginal  reading,  or  Keri,  in 
omni  tribulntione  eorum  non  est  tribulatus.  The  Septuagint  makes  it  con- 
tradict the  next  clause,  as  it  is  usually  understood,  by  rendering  it  ov  nQta§vg 
ov8l  uyyulog  dXX  avrog  saoi^ev  avtoig.  This  is  followed  by  Lowth  even  so 
far  as  to  connect  the  first  words  of  the  clause  with  the  preceding  verse  :  and 
he  became  their  saviour  in  all  their  distress.  It  ivas  not  an  envoy  nor  an 
angel  of  his  jjresence  that  saved  them,  etc.  Not  to  mention  other  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  this  interpretation,  its  making  15£  synonymous  with  I'^s  is 
wholly  arbitrary.     Another  forced   construction,  given   by  Cocceius,  and 


CH  APT  ER    LXIII.  421 

approved  by  Rosenmiiller,  Maurer,  and  almost  by  Gesenlus,  explains  there 
was  not  an  adversary,  and  he  saved  them,  to  mean,  there  scarcely  was  (or 
no  sooner  was  there)  an  adversary,  when  he  saved  them.  The  only  exam- 
ple of  this  harsh  and  obscure  syntax  which  is  cited,  namely  2  Kings  20  :  4, 
is  nothing  to  the  purpose,  because  there  it  is  expressly  said,  and  no  doubt 
meant,  that  Isaiah  had  not  gone  out  into  the  court ;  whereas  here  it  cannot 
possibly  be  meant  that  Israel  had  no  adversaries.  A  much  more  natural 
construction  is  the  one  proposed  by  Jerome  in  his  commentary,  'in  all  their 
affliction  he  did  not  afflict  (them)  ;'  which,  however,  is  scarcely  reconcilable 
with  history.  This  difficulty  is  avoided  by  Henderson's  modification  of 
the  same  construction,  in  all  their  ajffliction  he  was  not  an  adversary,  i.  e. 
although  he  afflicted  them,  he  did  not  hate  them.  This  agrees  well  with 
what  immediately  follows,  but  is  still  liable  to  the  objection  that  it  takes  ^!^ 
and  i^i'^^  in  entirely  different  senses,  which  can  only  be  admissible  in  case  of 
necessity.  Others  accordingly  regard  them  as  synonymous  expressions,  and 
in  order  to  remove  the  appearance  of  a  contradiction,  supply  some  qualifica- 
tion of  the  second  word.  Thus  Jarchi  understands  the  clause  to  mean  that 
in  all  their  affliction  there  was  no  such  affliction  as  their  sins  had  merited. 
Aurivillius  supposes  the  masculine  form  to  express  the  same  thing  with  the 
feminine  essentially,  but  in  a  higher  degree,  '  in  all  their  affliction  there  was 
no  extreme  or  fatal  affliction.'  Gesenius  rejects  this  explanation  of  the  forms 
as  too  artificial,  but  adopts  a  similar  interpretation  of  the  clause,  which  he 
explains  to  mean  that  in  all  their  distress  there  was  no  real  or  serious  dis- 
tress, none  that  deserved  the  name  ;  which  could  hardly  be  alleged  with 
truth.  It  is  also  hard  to  account  in  this  case  for  the  use  of  the  different 
forms  IS  and  n-i:i  to  express  the  same  idea,  after  rejecting  Aurivillius's  solu- 
tion. This  circumstance  appears  to  point  to  an  interpretation  which  shall 
give  the  words  essentially  the  same  sense,  yet  so  far  modified  as  to  explain 
the  difference  of  form.  Such  an  interpretation  is  the  one  suggested  by  De 
Wette's  version  of  the  clause,  which  takes  "i:i  and  ^^-'s  as  correlative  deriva- 
tives from  one  sense  of  the  same  root,  but  distinguished  from  each  other  as 
an  abstract  and  a  concrete,  enemy  and  enmity.  A  real  difficulty  in  the  way 
of  this  interpretation,  is  the  want  of  any  usage  to  sustain  the  latter  definition, 
which,  however,  is  so  easily  deducible  from  the  primary  meaning,  and  so 
clearly  indicated  by  the  parallel  expression,  that  it  may  perhaps  be  properly 
assumed  in  a  case  where  the  only  choice  is  one  of  difficulties.  Thus  under- 
stood, the  clause  simply  throws  the  blame  of  all  their  conflicts  with  Jehovah 
on  themselves :  in  all  their  enmity  (to  him)  he  was  not  an  enemy  (to  them). 
The  proof  of  this  assertion  is  that  he  saved  them,  not  from  Egypt  merely, 
but  from  all  their  early  troubles,  with  particular  reference  perhaps  to  the 
period  of  the  Judges,  in  the  history  of  which  this  verb  very  frequently  occurs. 
(See  Judges  2  :  16,  18.  3  :  15.  6  :  M.  etc.)     This  salvation  is  ascribed, 


422  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  I  I  I. 

however,  not  directly  to  Jehovah,  but  to  the  angel  of  his  face  or  presence. 
Kimchi  explains  this  to  mean  the  agency  of  second  causes,  which  he  says 
are  called  in  Scripture  aiii^els  or  messengers  of  God.  Abarbenel  gives  it  a 
personal  sense,  but  applies  it  to  the  angels  collectively.  Jarchi  makes  it 
not  only  a  personal  but  an  indivichial  description,  and  explains  it  to  mean 
Michael,  as  the  tutelary  angel  of  Israel  (Dan.  12  :  1).  Aben  Ezra,  with 
sagacity  and  judgment  superior  to  all  his  brethren,  understands  it  of  the  angel 
whom  Jehovah  promised  to  send  with  Israel  (Ex.  23  :  20-23),  and  whom 
he  did  send  (Ex.  14  :  19.  Num.  20  :  16),  and  who  is  identified  with  the 
presence  of  Jehovah  (Ex.  33  :  14,  15)  and  with  Jehovah  himself  (Ex. 
33  :  12).  The  combination  of  these  passages  determines  the  sense  of 
the  angtl  of  his  presence,  as  denoting  the  angel  whose  presence  was  the 
presence  of  Jehovah,  or  in  whom  Jehovah  was  personally  present,  and  pre- 
cludes the  explanation  given  by  Clericus  and  many  later  writers,  who  sup- 
])ose  it  to  mean  merely  an  angel  who  habitually  stands  in  the  presence  of 
Jehovah  (I  Kings  22  :  19),  just  as  human  courtiers  or  officers  of  state 
are  said  to  see  the  king's  face  (Jer.  52  :  25).  Even  Hitzig  admits  the 
identity  of  the  angel  of  Jehovah's  presence  with  Jehovah  himself,  but 
explains  it  away  by  making  angel  an  abstract  term,  not  denoting  in  any 
case  a  person,  but  the  manifestation  of  Jehovah's  presence  at  a  certain  time 
and  place.  Hendewerk,  on  the  other  hand,  alleges  that  the  angel  is  always 
represented  as  a  personality  distinct  from  Jehovah  himself.  By  blending 
these  concessions  from  two  writers  of  the  same  great  school,  we  obtain  a 
striking  testimony,  if  not  to  the  absolute  truth,  to  the  scriptural  correctness 
of  the  old  Christian  doctrine,  as  expounded  with  consummate  force  and 
clearness  by  Vitringa  in  his  comment  on  this  passage,  viz.  the  doctrine  that 
the  Angel  of  God's  presence,  who  is  mentioned  in  the  passages  already  cited, 
and  from  time  to  time  in  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament  (Gen.  28  :  13. 
31  :  11.  48  :  16.  Ex.  3  :  2.  Josh.  5  :  14.  Judges  13  :  6.  Hos.  12  :  5. 
Zech.  3:1.  ]\Ial.  3  :  1.  Ps.  34  :  8),  was  that  divine  person  who  is  repre- 
sented in  the  New  as  the  brightness  of  the  Father's  glory  and  the  express 
image  of  his  person  (Heb.  1  :  3),  the  image  of  God  (2  Cor.  4  :  4.  Col. 
1  :  15),  in  whose  face  the  glory  of  God  shines  (2  Cor.  4  :  6),  and  in  whom 
dwelleth  all  the  fullness  of  the  godhead  bodily  (Col.  2  :  9).  Lovvth's 
unfortunate  adoption  of  the  Septuagint  version  or  perversion  of  the  text,  led 
him  to  argue  ingeniously,  but  most  unfairly,  that  although  the  Angel  of 
Jehovah's  presence  is  sometimes  identified  with  Jehovah  himself,  yet  in 
other  places  he  is  explicitly  distinguished  from  him,  and  must  therefore  be 
considered  as  a  creature  ;  so  that  in  the  case  before  us,  which  is  one  of  those 
last  mentioned,  the  honour  of  Israel's  deliverance  is  denied  to  this  angel  and 
exclusively  ascribed  to  God  himself.  All  this  not  only  rests  upon  a  fanciful 
and  false  translation;  but  is  contradicted  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  Jews 


CHAPTERLXIII.  423 

and  Infidels  as  well  as  Christians,  tliat  the  salvation  of  God's  people  is 
directly  ascribed  to  the  Angel  of  Jehovah's  presence. — Vitringa  insists,  per- 
haps with  too  much  pertinacity,  upon  applying  what  immediately  follows  to 
the  Angel  and  not  to  Jehovah  :  first,  because  the  question  is  in  fact  a  doubt- 
ful one,  and  both  constructions  are  grammatical ;  and  secondly,  because  it  is 
a  question  of  no  moment,  after  the  essential  identity  of  the  Angel  and  Jehovah 
has  been  ascertained  from  other  quarters. — The  Hebrew  >^\'^T\ ,  from  h'c'n  to 
spare,  has  no  exact  equivalent  in  English,  and  can  only  be  expressed  by  a 
periphrasis.  The  same  aflections  towards  Israel  are  ascribed  to  Jehovah  in 
the  Pentateuch.  (Deut.  32  :  9-11.  Ps.  77  :  15.) — For  the  true  sense  of 
what  follows,  as  to  taking  up  and  carrying  them,  see  above,  on  ch.  46  :  3. 
— obi? ,  which  Vitringa  regards  as  identical  with  the  Latin  olim,  is  like  it 
applied  as  well  to  the  past  as  to  the  future.  It  originally  signifies  unknown 
or  indefinite  duration,  and  in  such  a  case  as  this,  remote  antiquity  ;  the 
whole  phrase  being  used  precisely  in  the  s'ame  sense  as  by  Amos  (9  :  11) 
and  IMicah  (7  :  14). — The  verb  redeem,  is  not  only  one  of  frequent  occur- 
rence in  these  prophecies  (ch.  43  :  1.  44  :  22,  23.  48  :  20.  49  :  7.  etc.), 
but  is  expressly  applied  elsewhere  to  the  redemption  of  Israel  from  Egypt 
(Ex.  6  :  5.  Ps.  74  :  2.  77  :  16),  and  is  therefore  applicable  to  all  other 
analogous  deliverances. 

V.  10.  And  they  rebelled  and  grieved  his  holy  spirit  (or  spirit  of  holi- 
ness), and  he  was  turned  for  them  into  an  enemy,  he  himself  fought  against 
them.  The  pronoun  at  the  beginning  is  emphatic  :  they  on  their  part,  as 
opposed  to  God's  forbearance  and  long-suffering.  There  seems  to  be  an 
allusion  in  this  clause  to  the  injunction  given  to  tiie  people  at  the  exodus, 
in  reference  to  the  Angel  who  was  to  conduct  them  :  Beware  of  him  and 
obey  his  voice,  provoke  him  not,  for  he  will  not  pardon  your  transgressions, 
for  my  name  is  in  him  (Ex.  23  :  21).  From  this  analogy  Vitringa  argues 
that  the  verse  before  us  has  specific  reference  to  the  disobedience  or  resist- 
ance offered  by  the  people  to  the  Angel  of  God's  presence.  As  the  next 
clause  may  have  reference  to  Jehovah,  it  cannot  be  demonstrated  from  it 
that  the  spirit  here  mentioned  is  a  personal  spirit,  and  not  a  mere  disposition 
or  affection.  But  the  former  supposition,  which  is  equally  consistent  with 
the  language  here  used,  in  itself  considered,  becomes  far  more  probable 
when  taken  in  connexion  with  the  preceding  verse,  where  a  personal  angel 
is  joined  with  Jehovah  precisely  as  the  Spirit  is  joined  with  him  here. 
Assuming  that  the  following  words  relate  to  this  Spirit,  he  is  then  described 
as  endued  with  personal  susceptibilities  and  performing  personal  acts,  and 
we  have  in  these  two  verses  a  distinct  enumeration  of  the  three  divine  per- 
sons. That  the  Spirit  of  this  verse,  like  the  Angel  of  the  ninth,  is  repre- 
sented as  divine,  is  evident  not  only  from  a  comparison  of  Ps.  7S  :  17,  40, 


424  CHAPTERLXIII. 

where  the  same  thing  is  said  of  God  himself,  but  also  from  the  fact  that 
those  interpreters  who  will  not  recognise  a  personal  spirit  in  this  passage, 
unanimously  understand  the  spirit  either  as  denoting  an  attribute  of  God  or 
God  himself.  Henderson  thinks  it  necessary  to  explain  away  a  seeming 
contradiction  between  this  verse  and  the  first  clause  of  v.  9,  by  making  "lit  a 
stronger  expression  than  2r:< .  The  true  solution  is,  that  the  passage  is  in 
some  sort  historical,  and  shows  the  progress  of  the  alienation  between  God 
and  Israel.  Having  shown  in  the  j)receding  verse  that  it  began  upon  the 
part  of  Israel,  and  was  long  resisted  and  deferred  by  Jehovah,  he  now  shows 
how  at  length  his  patience  was  exhausted,  and  he  really  became  what  he 
was  not  before.  This  is  the  true  sense  of  the  verb  "Siif. ,  to  which  many 
of  the  moderns  give  a  reflexive  form,  he  changed  himself.  The  disputes 
among  interpreters  whether  this  verse  has  reference  to  the  conduct  of  the 
people  in  the  wilderness,  or  under  the  judges,  or  before  the  Babylonish 
exile,  or  before  the  final  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  are  only  useful  as  a 
demonstration  that  the  passage  is  a  general  description,  which  was  often 
verified. — From  this  verse  Paul  has  borrowed  a  remarkable  expression  in 
Eph.  4  :  30.     (Compare  Matt.  12:31.   Acts  7  :  51.   Heb.  10  :  29.) 

V.  11.  And  he  remembered  the  days  of  old,  DJoses  (^aiid)  his  people. 
Where  is  he  that  brought  them  up  from  the  sea,  the  shepherd  of  his  Jlock? 
Where  is  he  that  put  within  him  his  Holy  Spirit  ?  Grotius  and  others 
make  Jehovah  the  subject  of  the  first  verb,  and  suppose  liim  to  be  here 
described  as  relenting;.  This  construction  has  the  advantajre  of  avoiding  an 
abrupt  change  of  person  without  any  intimation  in  the  text.  But  as  the 
following  can  be  naturally  understood  only  as  the  language  of  tiie  people, 
especially  when  compared  with  Jer.  2  :  6,  most  writers  are  agreed  in  refer- 
ring this  clause  to  the  people  also.  Cyril  and  Jerome,  it  is  true,  combine 
both  suppositions,  by  referring  he  remembered  to  Jehovah,  and  explaining 
what  follows  as  the  language  of  the  people.  But  a  transition  so  abrupt  is 
not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity.  The  Targum  gives  a  singular  turn  to 
the  sentence  by  supplying  Itst  they  say  before  the  second  clause,  which  then 
becomes  the  lani^uao-e  of  the  enemies  of  Israel,  exultinjr  in  the  failure  of 
Jehovah's  promises.  This  explanation  may  appear  to  derive  some  support 
from  the  analogy  of  Deut.  32  :  17,  which  no  doubt  suggested  it ;  but  a  fatal 
objection  is  the  one  made  by  Vitringa,  that  the  essential  idea  is  one  not 
expressed  but  arbitrarily  supplied.  Another  singular  interpretation  is  the 
one  contained  in  the  Dutch  Bible,  which  makes  God  the  subject  of  the  first 
verb  but  includes  it  in  the  language  of  the  people,  complaining  that  he  dealt 
with  them  no  longer  as  he  once  did  :  Once  he  remembered  the  days  of  old 
etc.  but  now  where  is  he  etc.  But  here  again  but  noiv,  on  which  the  whole 
depends,  must  be  supplied  without  authority.     The  modern  writers,  since 


CHAPTERLXIII.  425 

Vitringa,  are  agreed  that  the  first  clause  describes  the  repentance  of  the 
people,  and  that  the  second  gives  their  very  words,  contrasting  their  actual 
condition  with  their  former  privileges  and  enjoyments.  There  is  still  a  dif- 
ference of  opinion,  however,  with  respect  to  the  grammatical  construction  of 
the  first  clause.  Rosenmiiller  and  most  of  the  later  writers  follow  Jarchi  in 
making  ias  the  subject  of  the  verb :  and  his  people  remembered  the  days  of 
old  etc.  As  such  a  collocation  falls  in  with  the  German  idiom,  the  writers 
in  that  language  have  easily  been  led  to  regard  it  as  entirely  natural,  though 
really  as  foreign  from  Hebrew  as  frotn  English  usage.  The  solitary  case 
which  Hitzig  cites  (Ps.  34  :  22)  would  prove  nothing  by  itself,  even  if  it 
were  exactly  similar  and  unambiguous,  neither  of  which  is  really  the  case. 
But  another  difficulty  still  remains,  viz.  that  of  construing  the  words  i^'->  ^'4"^, 
which  seem  to  stand  detached  from  the  remainder  of  the  sentence.  Lovvth 
resorts  to  his  favourite  but  desperate  method  of  reading  i'nizs  his  servant,  on 
the  authority  of  the  Peshito  and  a  few  manuscripts.  Geseiiius,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  half  inclined  to  strike  out  >'i'^P^  as  a  marginal  gloss  still  wanting  in  the 
Septuagint.  These  emendations,  even  if  they  rested  upon  surer  grounds, 
would  only  lessen  not  remove  the  difficulty  as  to  the  construction  of  nr"2  or 
ISiS  vvith  what  goes  before.  Gesenius  makes  days  of  old  a  complex  noun 
governing  Moses:  the  ancient  days  of  Moses.  This  construction,  harsh  and 
unusual  as  it  is,  has  been  adopted  by  the  later  German  writers  except 
Maurer,  who,  after  denying  the  existence  of  the  difficulty,  brings  out  as  if 
it  were  a  new  discovery,  the  old  construction,  given  in  the  English  Bible 
and  maintained  at  length  by  Vitringa,  which  makes  Moses  and  his  people 
correlatives,  as  objects  of  the  verb  remembered :  He  remembered  the  ancient 
days,  viz.  those  of  Moses  and  his  people.  So  Gesenius,  in  the  notes  to  the 
second  edition  of  his  German  version,  calls  attention  to  the  explanation  of 
•t^'o  as  a  noun  or  participle  meaning  tlie  deliverer  of  his  people,  as  having 
been  recently  proposed  by  Horst,  whereas  it  is  at  least  as  old  as  Aben  Ezra, 
who  recites  without  adopting  it. — Henderson  is  disposed  to  omit  the  pronoun 
in  c)3?53r! ,  on  the  authority  of  two  old  manuscripts,  apparently  confirmed  by 
that  of  two  old  versions,  or  to  gain  the  same  end  by  regarding  the  construc- 
tion as  an  Aramaic  one,  in  which  the  pronoun  is  prefixed  in  pleonastic  anti- 
cipation of  the  noun  which  follows.  In  either  case  the  tn  will  be  not  a 
preposition  meaning  with,  but  the  objective  particle,  '  he  that  brought  up 
from  the  sea  the  shepherds  of  his  flock.'  The  objection  to  making  rx  a 
preposition  is  that  it  seems  to  separate  the  case  of  Moses  from  that  of  the 
people.  The  Targum  seems  to  make  it  a  particle  of  likeness  or  comparison, 
as  a  shepherd  does  his  flock,  which  Gesenius  thinks  a  far  better  sense;  but 
Hitzig  thinks  it  false,  because  shepherds  do  not  bring  their  flocks  up  from  the 
sea.      The  simplest  construction  is  to  repeat  nbs^n  before  nri  :    Where  is 


426  CHAPTER    LXIII. 

he  that  brought  them  up  from  the  sea,  (that  brought  up)  the  shepherd  of  his 
flock  ?  All  these  constructions  suppose  the  shepherd  to  be  JMoses  ;  but 
Knobel  understands  it  to  be  God  himself,  as  in  Ps.  78  :  52,  and  repeats  the 
verb  remembered,  '  it  (the  people)  remembered  the  shepherd  of  his  flock,' 
which  makes  an  equally  good  sense.  But  nearly  sixty  manuscripts  and 
forty  editions  read  '•'^'^  in  the  plural,  which  may  then  be  understood  as 
including  Aaron  (Ps.  77  :  21),  and  as  Vitringa  thinks  Miriam  (Micah  6 :  4), 
or  perhaps  the  seventy  elders  who  are  probably  referred  to  in  the  last  clause 
as  under  a  special  divine  influence.  (See  Num.  11:  17.  Con)pare  Ex. 
31:3.  35  :  31.)  The  suffix  in  la'ip;^  refers  to  C2.  The  noun  itself  is  used 
as  in  1  Kings  17:  22.  The  clause  implies,  if  it  does  not  express  directly, 
the  idea  of  a  personal  spirit,  as  in  the  preceding  verse. 

V.  12.  Leading  ihem  by  the  right  hand  of  Moses  (o/ir/)  his  glorious 
arm,  cleaving  the  waters  from  before  them,  to  male e  for  him  an  everlasting 
name  ?  The  sentence  and  the  interrogation  are  continued  from  the  forego- 
ing verse.  The  participle  with  the  article  there  defines  or  designates  the 
subject  as  the  one  bringing  up;  the  participle  here  without  the  article  sim- 
ply continues  the  description.  Vitringa  and  the  later  writers  follow  Jarchi 
in  giving  a  very  different  construction  to  the  first  clause,  making  his  glorious 
arm  the  object  of  the  verb.  The  meaning  of  the  whole  then  is  as  follows  : 
causing  his  glorious  arm  to  march  at  the  right  hand  of  Moses,  i.  e.  as  Jarchi 
explains  it,  causing  his  almighty  power,  of  which  the  arm  is  the  established 
symbol  (ch.  40  :  10.  59  :  16.  63  :  5),  to  be  near  or  present  with  the  Pro- 
phet when  he  needed  its  interposition.  This  is  a  good  sense,  but  it  seems 
more  natural  to  give  T("'V'"2  the  same  object  as  in  the  next  verse,  the  pronoun 
which  is  there  expressed  being  here  understood.  The  b,  which  the  writers 
above  mentioned  understand  as  in  Ps.  16:8,  may  agreeably  to  usage  denote 
general  relation,  the  specific  sense  o{  by  being  not  expressed  but  suggested 
by  the  context.  The  right  hand  may  be  mentioned  in  allusion  to  the  wield- 
ing of  the  rod  by  Moses,  and  the  glorious  arm  may  be  either  his  or  that  of 
God  himself,  which  last  sense  is  expressed  in  the  English  version  by  a 
change  of  preposition  (by  the  right  hand  of  Moses  tvith  his  glorious  arm). 
The  same  ambiguity  exists  in  the  last  clause,  where  the  everlasting  name 
may  be  the  honour  put  upon  Moses  or  the  glory  which  redounded  to  Jeho- 
vah himself,  as  in  ch.  55  :  13.  Knobel  is  singular  and  somewhat  para- 
doxical in  understanding  W^-q  rj^ia  as  descriptive  of  the  smiting  of  the  rock 
to  supply  the  people's  thirst,  simply  because  the  passive  of  the  same  verb  is 
applied  in  ch.  35  :  6  to  the  bursting  forth  of  water  in  the  desert;  whereas  it 
is  repeatedly  employed,  both  in  the  active  and  the  passive  form,  in  reference 
to  the  cleaving  of  the  waters  of  the  Red  Sea  (Ex.  14:  21.  Ps.  78:  13. 


CHAPTERLXIII.  427 

Nell.  9:  11),  and  is  so  understood  here  by  all  other  writers  whom  I  have 
consulted.  It  also  agrees  better  with  the  expression  from  before  them,  which 
innplies  the  removal  of  a  previous  obstruction. 

V.  13.  Making  them  walk  in  the  depths,  like  the  horse  in  the  desert 
they  shall  not  stumble.  The  description  of  the  exodus  is  still  continued,  and 
its  perfect  security  illustrated  by  comparisons.  There  is  no  need  of  givinp; 
to  nirnpi  with  the  modern  writers  the  distinct  sense  of  waves  in  this  and 
other  places,  as  the  proper  meaning  depths  is  more  appropriate  and  striking 
in  a  poetical  description.  The  desert  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  referred 
to  as  a  vast  plain  free  from  inequalities.  But  J.  D.  Michaelis,  after  twice 
announcing  that  he  never  rode  on  horseback  through  a  desert  in  his  life, 
makes  the  point  of  comparison  to  lie  in  the  fine  gravel  or  coarse  sand  with 
which  the  desert  of  Arabia  is  covered,  and  which  makes  an  admirable  foot- 
ing for  horses.  In  the  san)e  note  and  in  the  same  spirit  he  discards  the 
word  stumbling  {straucheln) ,  which  he  says  would  be  employed  by  one  who 
never  sat  upon  a  horse,  and  substitutes  another  {anstosseii)  as  the  technical 
term  of  the  manege,  although  requiring  explanation  to  tiie  common  reader. 
The  last  verb  would  seem  most  naturally  to  refer  to  the  horse ;  but  its  plural 
form  forbids  this  construction,  while  its  future  form  creates  a  difficulty  in 
referring  it  to  Israel.  IMost  versions  get  around  this  difficulty  by  periphrasis, 
without  stumbling,  so  as  not  to  stumble,  or  the  like.  The  true  solution  is 
afforded  by  the  writer's  frequent  habit  of  assuming  his  position  in  the  midst 
of  the  events  which  he  describes,  and  speaking  of  them  as  he  would  have 
spoken  if  he  had  been  really  so  situated.  The  comparison  in  the  first  clause 
brings  up  to  his  view  the  people  actually  passing  through  the  wilderness  ; 
and  in  his  confident  assurance  of  their  safe  and  easy  progress  he  exclaims, 
'they  will  not  stumble!'  The  same  explanation  is  admissible  in  many 
cases  where  it  is  customary  to  confound  the  tenses,  or  regard  their  use  as 
perfectly  capricious.  As  Knobel  in  the  foregoing  verse  supposes  an  allusion 
to  the  smiling  of  the  rock,  so  here  he  refers  the  description  to  the  passage  of 
the  Jordan,  as  if  unwilling  to  acknowledge  any  reference  to  the  Red  Sea  or 
the  actual  exodus  from  Egypt. 

V.  14.  As  the  herd  into  the  valley  ivill  go  down,  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah 
will  make  him  rest.  So  didst  thou  lead  thy  people,  to  make  for  thyself  a 
name  of  glory. — sr^na  is  probably  here  used  in  its  collective  sense  of  cattle, 
rather  than  in  that  of  an  individual  animal  or  beast.  This  version  is  not 
only  more  exact  than  the  common  one,  but  removes  the  ambiguity  in  the 
construction,  by  precluding  the  reference  of  him,  in  make  him  rest,  to  the 
preceding  noun,  which  is  natural  enough  in  the  English  Version,  though  for- 
bidden in  Hebrew  by  the  difference  of  gender. — The  him  really  refers  to 


428  CHAPTER    LXIII. 

Israel  or  people.  J.  D.  Michaclis  and  Lowlh  follow  the  ancient  versions, 
which  they  understand  as  reading  iin:n  will  guide  him.  But  the  idea  of 
guidance  is  sufficiently  inn  plied  in  the  common  reading,  which  may  be 
understood  as  meaning  '  will  bring  him  to  a  place  of  rest,'  a  form  of  expres- 
sion often  used  in  reference  to  the  promised  land.  (Deut.  12:  9,  10.  Ps. 
95  :  11.  etc.)  A  similar  agency  is  elsewhere  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  of  God. 
(Ps.  143  :  10.  Hagg.  2  :  5.  Neh.  9  :  20.) — The  use  of  the  futures  in  this 
clause  is  precisely  tlie  same  as  in  the  foregoing  verse.  In  the  last  clause 
the  Prophet  ceases  to  regard  the  scene  as  actually  present  and  resumes  the 
tone  of  historical  retrospection,  at  the  same  time  summing  up  the  whole  in 
one  comprehensive  proposition,  ihus  didst  thou  lead  thy  people. — With  the 
last  words  of  the  verse  compare  ch.  60  :  21.  61:3. 

V.  15.  LooTc  (down)  from  heaven  and  see  from  thy  dwelling-place  of 
holiness  and  beauty  !  Where  is  thy  zeal  and  thy  might  (or  mighty  deeds)  1 
The  sounding  of  thy  bowels  and  thy  mercies  towards  me  have  ivithdrawn 
themselves.  The  foregoing  description  of  God's  ancient  favours  is  now 
made  the  ground  of  an  importunate  appeal  for  new  ones.  The  unusual 
word  for  dwelling-place  is  borrowed  from  the  prayer  of  Solomon.  (I  Kings 
8  :  13.)  For  a  similar  description  of  heaven,  see  above,  ch.  57  :  15.  God 
is  here  represented  as  withdrawn  into  heaven  and  no  longer  active  upon 
earth.  For  the  meaning  of  his  zeal,  see  above,  on  ch.  59  :  17.  Jarchi  adds 
n:r.snn  i.  e.  thy  former  zeal.  Eighteen  manuscripts,  two  editions,  and  the 
ancient  versions,  read  ?)r^i25,  in  the  singular.  The  plural  probably  denotes 
mighty  deeds  or  feats  of  strength,  as  in  1  K.  15:  23.  16:  27.  22:  46. 
V^n  is  not  to  be  taken  in  its  secondary  sense  of  multitude,  as  it  is  by  the 
Septuagint  (nJSj&og)  and  the  Vulgate  (multitudo),  but  in  its  primary  sense 
of  commotion,  noise.  The  verbal  root  is  applied  in  like  manner  to  the 
movements  of  compassion,  ch.  16  :  11.  Jer.  31  :  20.  48  :  36,  in  the  last  of 
which  places  it  is  connected  with  the  verbal  root  of  ci-^m  the  parallel 
expression  in  the  case  before  us.  Although  we  are  obliged  to  render  one  of 
these  nouns  by  a  literal  and  the  other  by  a  figurative  term,  both  of  them 
properly  denote  the  viscera,  on  the  figurative  use  of  which  to  signify  strong 
feeling,  see  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  322. — The  last  verb  in  the  verse 
denotes  a  violent  suppression  or  restraint  of  strong  emotion  (Gen.  43  :  30. 
45  :  1),  and  is  sometimes  applied  directly  to  God  himself.  (See  above,  ch. 
42 :  14,  and  below,  ch.  64  :  11.)  The  last  clause  may  be  variously  divided 
without  a  material  change  of  meaning.  The  English  Version  makes  the 
last  verb  a  distinct  interrogation,  are  they  restrained!  Henderson  makes 
the  second  question  the  larger  of  the  two,  are  the  sounding  of  thy  bowels 
etc.  ?  The  objection  to  both  is  that  the  second  question  is  not  natural,  and 
that  they  arbitrarily  assume  an  interrogative  construction  without  any  thing 


CHAPTER    LXIII.  429 

to  indicate  it,  as  the  where  cannot  be  repeated.  Vitringa  and  Hitzig  make 
the  whole  one  question  and  supply  the  relative  before  the  last  verb,  where 
is  thy  zeal  etc.  which  are  restrained  ?  But  the  simplest  construction  is  that 
which  makes  the  last  clause  a  simple  affirmation  (Gesenius),  or  an  impas- 
sioned exclamation  (Ewald).  There  is  something  peculiarly  expressive  in 
Luther's  paraphrase  of  this  last  clause :  deine  grosse  herzliche  Barmherz- 
igkeit  halt  sich  hart  gegen  mich. 

V.  16.  For  thou  (art)  our  father ;  for  Abraham  hath  not  known  us, 
and  Israel  will  not  recognise  us,  thou  Jehovah  (art)  our  father,  our  redeemer 
of  old  (or  from  everlasting)  is  thy  name.  The  common  version  needlessly 
obscures  the  sense  and  violates  the  usage  of  the  language  by  rendering  the 
first  ■'S  doubtless,  and  the  second  though.  Rosenmiiller  gives  the  first  the 
sense  of  but,  simply  observing  that  the  particle  is  here  not  causal  but  adver- 
sative. This  wanton  variation  from  the  ordinary  sense  of  terms,  whenever 
there  appears  to  be  the  least  obscurity  in  the  connexion,  is  one  of  the  errors 
of  the  old  school  of  interpreters,  retained  by  Rosenmiiller,  who  is  a  kind  of  link 
between  them  and  the  moderns.  The  later  German  writers  are  more  rigidly 
exact,  and  Maurer  in  particular  observes  in  this  case  that  the  ''s  has  its 
proper  causal  sense  in  reference  to  the  first  clause  of  v.  15.  Why  do  we 
ask  thee  to  look  down  from  heaven  and  to  hear  our  prayer?  Because  thou 
art  our  father.  This  does  not  merely  mean  our  natural  creator,  but  our 
founder,  our  national  progenitor,  as  in  Deut.  32  :  6.  Here,  however,  it 
appears  to  be  employed  in  an  emphatic  and  exclusive  sense,  as  if  he  had 
said,  '  thou  and  thou  alone  art  our  father ;'  for  he  immediately  adds,  as  if  to 
explain  and  justify  this  strange  assertion,  '  for  Abraham  has  not  known  us, 
and  Israel  will  not  recognise  or  acknowledge  us.'  The  assimilation  of  these 
tenses,  as  if  both  past  or  future,  is  entirely  arbitrary  ;  and  their  explanation 
as  both  present,  a  gratuitous  evasion.  As  in  many  other  cases,  past  and 
future  are  here  joined  to  make  the  proposition  universal.  Dropping  the 
peculiar  parallel  construction,  the  sense  is  that  neither  Abraham  nor  Israel 
have  known  or  will  know  any  thing  about  us,  have  recognised  or  will  here- 
after recognise  us  as  their  children.  The  meaning,  therefore,  cannot  be  that 
Abraham  and  Israel  are  ashamed  of  us  as  unworthy  and  degenerate  descend- 
ants, as  Piscator  understands  it ;  or  that  Abraham  and  Israel  cannot  save 
us  by  their  merits,  as  Cocceius  understands  it ;  or  that  Abraham  and  Israel 
did  not  deliver  us  from  Egypt,  as  the  Targum  understands  it;  or  that 
Abraham  and  Israel,  being  now  dead,  can  do  nothing  for  us,  as  Vitringa 
and  the  later  writers  understand  it.  All  these  interpretations,  and  a  number 
of  unnatural  constructions  and  false  versions,  some  of  which  have  been 
already  mentioned,  owe  their  origin  to  the  insuperable  difficulty  of  applying 


430  CHAPTERLXIII. 

these  words,  in  their  strict  and  unperverted  sense,  to  the  Jews  as  the  natural 
descendants  of  the  patriarchs  in  question.  Henderson's  mode  of  reconcihng 
what  is  here  said  with  his  general  aj)pHcation  of  the  prophecy  is  curious 
enough.  After  justly  observing  that  "the  hereditary  descent  of  the  Jews 
from  Abraham,  and  their  dependence  upon  his  merits  and  those  of  Isaac 
and  Jacob,  form  the  proudest  grounds  of  boasting  among  them  at  the  present 
day,  as  they  did  in  the  time  of  our  Lord,"  he  adds  that  "when  converted, 
thev  shall  be  ashamed  of  all  such  confidence,  and  glory  in  Jehovah  alone." 
Such  an  effect  of  individual  conversion  and  regeneration  may  be  certainly 
expected;  but  a  general  restoration  of  the  Jews  as  a  people,  not  only  to 
the  favour  of  God  but  to  the  land  of  their  fathers,  and  not  only  to  the  land 
of  their  fathers,  but  to  pre-eminence  among  the  nations,  so  that  their  temple 
shall  again  be  universally  frequented,  and  the  whole  world  reduced  to  the 
alternative  of  perishing  or  serving  them,  is  so  far  from  naturally  tending  to 
correct  the  evil  which  has  been  described,  that  nothing  but  a  miracle  would 
seem  sufficient  to  prevent  its  being  aggravated  vastly  by  the  very  means 
which  Henderson  expects  to  work  a  final  cure.  The  true  sense  of  the 
verse,  as  it  appears  to  me,  is  that  the  church  or  chosen  people,  although 
once,  for  temporary  reasons,  coextensive  and  coincident  with  a  single  race, 
is  not  essentially  a  national  organization,  but  a  spiritual  body.  Its  father  is 
not  Abraham  or  Israel,  but  Jeliovah,  who  is  and  always  has  been  its 
redeemer,  who  has  borne  that  name  from  everlasting  ;  or  as  Hitzig  under- 
stands the  last  clause,  he  is  our  redeemer,  whose  name  is  from  everlasting. 
Most  interpreters,  however,  are  agreed  in  understanding  this  specific  name 
of  our  redeemer  to  be  here  described  as  everlasting  or  eternal.  According 
to  the  explanation  which  has  now  been  given,  this  verse  explicitly  asserts 
what  is  implied  and  indirectly  taught  throughout  these  prophecies,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  true  design  and  mission  of  the  Church,  and  its  relation  to  Jehovah, 
to  the  world,  and  to  the  single  race  with  which  of  old  it  seemed  to  be 
identified.  This  confirmation  of  our  previous  conclusions  is  the  more  satis- 
factory, because  no  use  has  hitherto  been  made  of  it,  by  anticipation,  in 
determining  the  sense  of  many  more  obscure  expressions,  to  which  it  may 
now  be  considered  as  affording  a  decisive  key.  It  only  remains  to  add,  as 
a  preventive  of  misapprehension,  that  the  strong  terms  of  this  verse  are  of 
coui-se  to  be  comparatively  understood,  not  as  implying  that  the  church 
will  ever  have  occasion  to  repudiate  its  historical  relation  to  the  patriarchs, 
or  cease  to  include  among  its  members  many  of  their  natural  descendants, 
but  simply  as  denying  all  continued  or  perpetual  pre-eminence  to  Israel  as  a 
race,  and  exalting  the  common  relation  of  believers  to  their  great  Head  as 
paramount  to  all  connexion  with  particular  progenitors — the  very  doctrine  so 
repeatedly  and  emphatically  taught  in  the  New  Testament. 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  I  I  I.  431 

V.  17.    Why  ivilt  thou  make  its  luonder,  oh  Jehovah,  from  thy  ways  ; 
(why)  wilt  thou  harden  our  heart  from  thy  fear?  Return,  for  the  sake  of 
thy  servants,  the   tribes  of  thy  inheritance.     The  earnestness  of  the  prayer 
is  evinced  by  an  increasing  boldness  of  expostulation.     Rosenmiiller  shows, 
by  a  reference  to  Deut.  2  :  28  and    I  Sam.  14  :  36,  that  the  Hiphil  often 
signifies  permission  rather  than   direct  causation.     But  although  this  usage 
is  indisputable,  it  is  here  forbidden   by  the  parallel  expression,  which  can 
hardly  mean  to  suffer  to   grow   hard,   and   rendered    unnecessary   by   the 
frequency  and  clearness  with  which  such  an  agency  is  ascribed  to  God  him- 
self elsewhere.      As   to   the    sense  of  such    expressions,    see    the    Earlier 
Pro})hecies,  p.  96.    Equally  shallow  and  malignant  are  the  comments  of  the 
German  writers  on  this  subject  ;   as  a  specimen  of  which  may   be  given 
Hitzig's  statement  that  "  Jehovah  makes  men  sinners  for  the  sake  of  punishing 
them  afterwards  ;  to  the  question  why  he  does  so,  the  East  [by  which  he 
means  the  Bible]  makes  no  answer.     Compare  Rom.  9  :  17-22."     The 
future  verbs  are  not  to  be  arbitrarily  explained  as  preterites,  or  (with  Ilitzig) 
as  implying  that  the  action  still  continues,  but  as  asking  why  he  will  continue 
so  to  do.     The  second  verb  occurs  only  here  and  in  Job  39  :  16,  where  it 
is  applied  lo  the  ostrich's  hard  treatment  of  her  young.    It  is  obviously  near 
akin  to  n'r^^  ,  and  Vitring^  thinks  the  substitution  of  the  stronger  guttural  has 
an  intensive  effect  upon  the  meaning.     The  particle  in  from  thy  fear  is 
commonly  supposed  to  have  a  privative  or  negative  meaning,  so  as  not  to 
fear  thee  ;  but  there  is   rather  an   allusion  to  the  wandering  just   before 
mentioned,  as  if  he  had  said,  'and  why  wilt  thou  make  us  to  wander,   by 
hardening  our  heart,  from  thy  fear?'    This  last  expression,  as  in  many  other 
cases,  includes  all  the  duties  and  affections  of  true  piety. — For  the  sense  of 
God's  returning  to  his  people,  see  above,  on  ch.  52  :  8.    The  tribes  of  thine 
inheritance  is  an  equivalent  expression   to  thy  people ;   which  oiiginated  in 
the  fact  that  Israel,  like  other  ancient  oriental  races,  was  divided  into  tribes. 
The  argument  drawn  from  this  expression  in  favour  of  applying  the  whole 
passage  to  the  Jews,  proves  too  much  ;  for  the  distinction  into  tribes  is  as 
much  lost  now  among  the  Jews  as  among  the  gentiles.     The  Jews,  indeed, 
are  properly  but  one  tribe,  that  of  Judah,  in  which  the  remnants  of  the 
others  were  absorbed  after  the  exile. 

V.  18.  For  a  little  thy  holy  people  possessed,  our  enemies  trod  doum 
thy  sanctuary.  The  sense  of  this  verse  is  extremely  dubious.  "i^5£^5  is  else- 
where used  in  reference  to  magnitude  (Gen.  19  :  20)  and  number  (2  Chr. 
24  :  24),  not  to  time.  J,  D.  Michaelis  connects  it  with  the  foregoing  verse, 
and  reads,  '  the  tribes  of  thy  inheritance  have  become  a  little  thing,'  i.  e.  an 
object  of  contempt.     So  the  Vulgate,  quasi  nihilum.     The  Sepuingint  also 


432  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  I  I  I. 

joins  the  first  clause  with  v.  17,  and  omits  the  second,  '  that  we  may  inherit 
a  little  of  thy  holy  mountain,'  reading  in  for  c"  which  is  approved  by  Lowth. 
Cocceius  takes  "^^J^^^  in  the  sense  of  almost,  like  ^?";3  (Gen.  26  :  10. 
Ps.  73  :  2).  Lowth,  Kocher,  and  Rosenmiiller  make  it  equivalent  to 
the  Latin  parviim.  But  Vitringa  and  the  later  writers  understand  it  as 
an  adverb  of  time,  cognate  and  equivalent  to  "i>]^  (ch.  10  :  25.  29  :  17). 
Another  question  is  whether  thy  holy  people  is  the  subject  or  object  of  the 
verb  possessed.  Thus  Grotius  understands  the  clause  to  mean  that  the 
enemy /or  a  Utile  luhile  possessed  thy  holy  people  ;  and  Cocceius,  that  they 
almost  possessed  thy  holy  people  ;  Kocher  and  Rosenmiiller,  it  was  not 
enough  that  they  possessed  thy  holy  people,  they  also  trampled  on  thy 
sanctuary ;  Lowth,  it  was  little  that  they  did  both,  if  God  had  not  besides 
rejected  them.  The  subject  is  then  to  be  supplied  from  the  other  clause,  or 
brought  into  this,  by  a  removal  of  the  accent  and  a  consequent  change  of 
interpunction.  The  modern  writers  are  agreed,  however,  in  making  holy 
people  the  subject  of  the  verb,  and  supplying  the  object  from  the  other 
clause,  thy  sanctuary,  which  is  understood  by  Hitzig  as  denoting  the  entire 
holy  land  (Zech.  2  :  16),  as  the  cities  of  Judah  are,  he  thinks,  called  holy  cities 
in  ch.  64  :  9.  Maurer  suggests  another  method  of  providing  both  a  subject 
and  an  object  to  the  verb  by  omitting  the  makkeph  and  reading  ^^^"^i^  c»  w-i;; , 
the  people  possessed  thy  holy  (thing  or  place).  According  to  the  usua] 
construction  of  the  sentence,  it  assigns  as  a  reason  for  Jehovah's  interference, 
the  short  time  during  which  the  chosen  people  bad  possessed  the  land  of 
promise.  But  it  may  be  objected  that  "lyai:^  would  naturally  seem  to 
qualify  both  clauses,  which  can  only  be  prevented  by  supplying  arbitrarily 
between  them  and  then  or  now.  This  consideration  may  be  said  to  favour 
Grotius's  construction  ;  which  is  further  recommended  by  its  grammatical 
simplicity,  in  giving  to  both  verbs  one  and  the  same  subject.  What  is 
common  to  both  explanations  is  the  supposition  that  the  verse  describes  a 
subjection  to  enemies.  The  question  upon  which  they  disagree  is  whether 
this  subjection  is  itself  described  as  temporary,  or  the  peaceable  possession 
which  preceded  it.  In  no  case  can  an  argument  be  drawn  from  it  to  prove 
that  this  whole  passage  has  respect  to  the  Jews  in  their  present  dispersion  : 
first,  because  the  sufferings  of  the  church  in  after  ages  are  frequently 
presented  under  figures  drawn  from  the  peculiar  institutions  of  the  old 
economy  ;  and  secondly,  because  the  early  history  of  Israel  is  as  much  the 
early  history  of  the  Christian  church  as  of  the  Jewish  nation,  so  that  we  have 
as  much  rigiit  as  the  Jews  to  lament  the  profanation  of  the  Holy  Land,  and 
more  cause  to  pray  for  its  recovery  by  Christendom,  than  they  for  its  restoration 
to  themselves.  Gesenius's  translation  of  ^DOiaas  meaning 2^/M«(/erc(/,  although 
copied  by  Umbreit,  is  most  probably  an  inadvertence  ;  as  no  such  meaning 


CHAPTER    LXIII.  433 

of  the  verb  Is  given  or  referred  to  in  any  of  his  Hebrew  lexicons.  The 
error  was  observed  and  corrected  even  by  De  Wette  and  Noyes,  the  two 
most  faithful  followers  of  Gesenius  in  his  version  of  Isaiah. 

V.  19.    JVe  are  of  old,  thou  hast  not  ruled  over  them,  thy  name  has  not 
been  called  upon  them.     Oh  that  thou  ivouldst  rend  the  heavens  (and)  come 
down,  (that)  from  before  thee  the  mountains  might  quake  (or  flow  down). 
Most  of  the  modern  writers  have  adopted  a  construction  of  the  first  clause 
suggested  by  the    paraphrastic   versions    of  the   Septuagint  and    Vulgate. 
This  supposes  the  description  of  the  people's  alienation  from  God   to  be 
continued  :    We  have  long  been  those  (or  like  those)  over  whom  thou  didst 
not  rule,  and  who  were  not   called  by  thy   name ;   that  is  to  say,  thou  hast 
long  regarded  and  treated  us  as  aliens  rather  than  thy  chosen  people.    The 
tbi3.'53  is  then  referred  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar  or 
by  Titus,  according  to  the  general  exegetical  hypothesis  of  each  interpreter. 
The  ellipsis  of  the  relative  involved  in  this  construction  can  create  no  diffi- 
culty, as  it  is  one  of  perpetual  occurrence  ;  but  the  sense  which  it  puts  upon 
the  clause  is  very  far  from  being  obvious,  or  one  which  a  Hebrew  writer 
would   be  likely   to  express  in    this  way.     Another  old  and  well  known 
construction  of  the  clause  is  founded  on   the  Chaldee  Paraphrase,  which 
understands  this  not  as  a  description  of  their  misery  but  an  assertion  of  their 
claim  to  relief,  in  the  form  of  a  comparison  between  themselves  and  their 
oppressors.    This  is  the  sense  given  in  the  English  Version  :    We  are  thine, 
thou  never  barest  rule   over  them  etc.    To  this  form  of  the  interpretation  it 
has  been  objected,  not  without  reason,  that  it  puts  upon  the  verb  ive  are 
or  have  been  a  sense  not  justified  by  usage,  or  in  other  words,  that  it  arbi- 
trarily supplies  the  essential  idea  upon  which  the  whole  turns,  namely,  thine 
or  thy  people.  But  this  objection  may  be  easily  removed  by  connecting  the 
verb  with  ^^"^  ,  loe  are  of  old.     The  point  of  comparison  is  then  their 
relative  antiquity,  the  enemy  being  represented  as  a  new  race  come  into 
possession  of  the  rights  belonging   to  the  old.     There    is  then  no  need  of 
supplying  thine,  the  relation  of  the  people  to  Jehovah  being  not  particularly 
hinted  here,  although  suggested  by  the  whole  connexion.    With  this  modifi- 
cation the  construction  of  the  Targum  and  the  English  Bible  seems  entitled 
to  the  preference — Thou  didst  not  rule  over  them.     This  has  no  reference, 
of  course,  to  God's  providential  government,  but  only  to  the  peculiar  theocra- 
tical  relation  which  he  bears  to  his  own  people.  The  same  idea  is  expressed 
by  the  following  words,  as  to  the  sense  of  which  see  above  on  cli.  48  :  1. 
The  inconvenience  of  strongly  marked  divisions  in  a  book  like  this,  is  exem- 
plified by  the  disputes  among  interpreters,  whether  the  remaining  words  of 
this  verse  as  it  stands  in  the  masoretic  text  should  or  should  not  be  separated 
from  it  and  connected  with  the  following  chapter.     Gesenius  and  the  later 

28 


434  CH  A  P  TE  R    LXI  V. 

writers  choose  the  latter  course,  while  Rosenmiiller  steadfastly  adheres  to 
the  masoretic  interpunction.  The  simple  truth  is  that  there  ought  to  be  no 
pause  at  all  in  this  place,  the  transition  from  complaint  to  the  expression  of 
an  ardent  wish  being  not  only  intentional  but  highly  effective.  It  is  true 
that  this  clause  ought  not  to  be  separated  from  what  follows  ;  but  it  does 
not  follow  that  it  ought  to  be  severed  from  what  goes  before, — a  gross  non 
sequitur,  with  which  the  reasoning  of  some  learned  writers  is  too  often  justly 
chargeable.  Ewald  reckons  the  remainder  of  this  sentence  as  the  first  verse 
of  the  sixty-fourth  chapter,  on  the  authority  of  the  ancient  versions,  but 
obviates  the  inconvenience  commonly  attending  it,  by  throwing  the  whole 
context  from  v.  18  to  v.  5  of  the  next  chapter,  both  inclusive,  into  one 
unbroken  paragraph.  Our  own  exposition  will  proceed  upon  the  principle 
heretofore  applied,  that  this  is  a  continuous  composition,  that  the  usual 
divisions  are  mere  matters  of  convenience  or  inconvenience  as  the  case  may 
be,  and  that  more  harm  is  likely  to  result  from  too  much  than  from  too  little 
separation  of  the  parts.  The  passionate  apostrophe  in  this  clause,  far  from 
being  injured  or  obscured,  is  rendered  more  expressive  by  its  close  connexion 
with  the  previous  complaints  and  lamentations.  The  idea  now  suggested 
is,  that  weary  of  complaint  the  people  or  the  prophet  speaking  for  them 
suddenly  appeals  to  God  directly  with  an  ardent  wish  that  he  would  deal 
with  them  as  in  days  of  old.  For  the  construction  of  the  optative  particle 
t<!ib  ,  see  above,  on  ch.  48  :  18.  The  TargumandLuzzatto  make  it  negative, 
as  if  written  x""?  or  x^  ,  a  variation  which  does  not  materially  affect  the 
sense,  but  merely  changes  the  expression  of  a  wish  that  something  might 
be  done,  to  a  complaint  that  it  is  not  done  :  '  thou  hast  not  rent  the  heavens,' 
etc.  The  remaining  words  are  a  poetical  description  of  Jehovah's  interpo- 
sition or  the  manifestation  of  his  presence,  under  figures  drawn  perhaps 
from  the  account  of  his  epiphany  on  Sinai.  Gesenius  explains  'i^ij  to  denote 
commotion  ;  Ewald  adheres  to  the  old  etymology  and  sense  of  melting. 


CHAPTER    LXIV. 


This  chapter,  like  the  one  before  it,  from  which  it  is  in  fact  inseparable, 
has  respect  to  the  critical  or  turning  point  between  the  old  and  new  dispen- 
sations, and  presents  it  just  as  it  might  naturally  have  appeared  to  the 
believing  Jews,  i.  e.  the  first  Christian  converts,  at  that  juncture.     The 


CHAPTER    L  XIV.  435 

strongest  confidence  is  expressed  in  the  divine  power,  founded  upon  former 
experience,  vs.  ]-3.  The  two  great  facts  of  Israel's  rejection  as  a  nation, 
and  the  continued  existence  of  the  church,  are  brought  together  in  v.  4. 
The  unworthiness  of  Israel  is  acknowledged  still  more  fully,  vs.  5,  6.  The 
sovereign  authority  of  God  is  humbly  recognised,  v.  7.  His  favour  is 
earnestly  implored,  v.  8.  The  external  prerogatives  of  Israel  are  lost,  v.  9. 
But  will  God  for  that  cause  cast  off  the  true  Israel,  his  own  church  or 
people?  v.  10. 

V.  1.  As  fire  kindles  brush,  fire  boils  ivater — to  make  known  thy  name 
to  thine  enemies,  from  before  thee  nations  shall  tremble.  The  last  clause 
coheres  directly  with  the  preceding  verse,  while  the  first  is  a  parenthetical 
comparison  ;  for  which  cause  some  of  the  latest  writers  throw  the  last  words 
of  cb.  63  into  this  sentence.  This,  for  reasons  which  have  been  already- 
given,  is  unnecessary  ;  it  is  sufficient  to  observe  the  connexion  upon  which 
the  proposed  arrangement  rests.  As  n^ps  is  both  transitive  and  intransitive, 
either  of  two  constructions  maybe  here  adopted — as  a  fire  of  brushwood 
burns,  or,  as  fire  kindles  brush — the  last  of  which  is  preferred  by  most  inter- 
preters, as  simpler  in  itself,  and  because  fire  is  the  subject  of  the  verb  in 
the  next  clause  also.  The  various  explanations  of  Qioicn  by  the  older 
writers  are  detailed  by  Vitringa  and  Rosenmiiller.  The  ancient  versions 
and  several  of  the  rabbins  derive  it  from  ooa  to  melt,  but  in  violation  of 
etymological  analogy.  The  first  hint  of  the  true  sense  was  given  by  Rabbi 
Jonah,  who  pronounces  it  to  mean  dry  stubble  {tT  tp),  and  the  definition 
has  been  since  completed  by  the  Arabic  analogy.  Schultens'  construction 
of  the  next  words,  aquae  effervescunt  igne,  involves  a  twofold  irregularity, 
viz.  in  gender  and  in  number,  which  is  not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity. 
The  point  of  comparison  in  both  these  clauses  is  the  rapidity  and  ease  with 
which  the  effect  is  produced.  Hitzig  supposes  a  specific  allusion  in  the 
second  to  the  bouleversement  or  complete  transposition  of  the  particles  of 
boiling  water,  as  an  emblem  of  the  general  confusion  which  the  presence  of 
Jehovah  would  produce ;  but  this  is  more  ingenious  and  refined  than  natural. 
The  literal  effect  is  described  in  the  next  words,  to  make  known  thy  name, 
i.  e.  to  manifest  thy  being  and  thine  attributes  to  thine  enemies.  In  both 
parts  of  the  sentence  the  construction  passes  as  it  were  insensibly  from  the 
infinitive  to  the  future,  a  transition  not  unfrequent  in  Hebrew  syntax.  The 
last  future  is  supposed  by  the  latest  writers  to  be  still  dependent  on  the 
optative  particle  in  ch.  63  :  19,  'oh  that  the  nations  at  thy  presence  mi^ht 
tremble.'  But  as  the  infinitive  immediately  precedes,  and  as  x^i?  is  there 
construed  with  the  praeter,  it  is  better  to  regard  iti-.i  simply  as  a  statement 
of  what  would  be  the  effect  of  God's  appearance. 


436  CH  A  PT  E  R    LXI  V. 

V.  2.  In  thy  doing  fearful  things  (which)  we  expect  not,  (oh  that)  thou 
wouldst  come  doivn,  (that)  the  mountains  from  before  thee  might  flow  down. 
There  are  two  very  difTerent  constructions  of  this  verse.  Gesenius  agrees 
with  the  English  Version  in  making  it  a  direct  historical  statement  of  a  past 
event :  When  thou  didst  terrible  things  which  we  looked  not  for,  thou 
camest  down,  the  mountains  flowed  down  at  thy  presence.  This  seems  to 
be  the  simplest  possible  construction  ;  but  it  is  attended  by  a  serious  gram- 
matical difficulty,  viz,  the  necessity  of  referring  the  future  n|!i^3  to  past  time, 
without  any  thing  in  the  connexion  to  facilitate  or  justify  the  version.  On 
the  other  hand,  this  word  appears  to  be  decisive  of  the  future  bearing  of  the 
whole  verse,  and  in  favour  of  the  syntax  adopted  by  Hitzig,  Ewald,  and 
Knobel,  which  supposes  the  influence  of  the  optative  particle  to  be  still 
continued  through  this  verse,  as  well  as  that  before  it :  (Oh  that)  in  doing 
terrible  things,  such  as  we  expect  not,  thou  wouldst  come  down,  etc. 
There  is  then  no  need  of  resorting  to  forced  explanations  of  the  sense  in 
which  the  Prophet  could  speak  as  if  he  had  been  present  at  Mount  Sinai. 
The  construction  of  the  praeterlte  with  x>'.^  is  the  same  as  in  ch.  63  :  19. 

V.  3.  And  from  eternity  they  have  not  heard,  they  have  not  perceived 
by  the  ear,  the  eye  hath  not  seen,  a  God  beside  thee  (who)  will  do  for  (one) 
waiting  for  him.  This  verse  assigns  a  reason  why  such  fearful  things  should  be 
expected  from  Jehovah,  namely,  because  he  alone  had  proved  himself  able  to 
perform  them.  Kimchi  supplies  m^ixna^zoMs,  as  the  subject  of  the  plural  verbs; 
but  they  are  really  indefinite,  and  mean  that  men  in  general  have  not  heard, 
or,  as  we  should  say,  that  no  one  has  heard,  or  in  a  passive  form,  it  has  not 
been  heard.  Do  may  be  either  taken  absolutely,  or  as  governing  them,  i.  e. 
the  fearful  things  mentioned  in  v.  2.  Waiting  for  God  implies  faith,  hope, 
and  patient  acquiescence.  (See  above,  on  ch.  40  :  31.)  The  construction 
here  piven  is  the  one  now  commonly  adopted,  and  is  also  given  in  the  margin 
of  the  English  Bible,  and  by  Grotius  and  Cocceius  ;  while  the  text  of  that 
version,  with  Vitringa  and  others,  makes  Q'^nbx  a  vocative,  and  ascribes  to 
God  not  only  the  doing  but  the  knowledge  of  the  fearful  things  in  question. 
This  construction  is  preferred  by  Vitringa,  Rosenmiiller,  and  many  others, 
and  agrees  better  with  Paul's  quotation  (2  Cor.  2:9)  of  the  words  as 
descriptive  of  the  gospel  as  a  mystery  or  something  hidden  till  revealed  by 
the  Spirit.  (Compare  Rom.  15  :  26,  and  Matth.  13  :  17.)  But  in  this, 
as  in  many  other  cases,  the  apostle,  by  deliberately  varying  the  form  of  the 
expression,  shows  that  it  was  not  his  purpose  to  interpret  the  original  passage, 
but  simply  to  make  use  of  its  terms  in  expressing  his  own  thoughts  on  a 
kindred  subject.  Least  of  all  can  any  emendation  of  the  text  be  founded 
upon  this  quotation,  such  as  the  change  of ''sna  to  ■'^nn  from  aan,  which,  as 


CHAPTERLXIV.  437 

Vitringa  well  observes,  although  applied  to  the  divine  love  for  man,  is 
inappropriate  to  human  love  for  God,  not  to  mention  the  unusual  construction 
with  15. 

V.  4.  Thou  hast  met  with  one  rejoicing  and  executing  righteousness  ; 
in  thy  ways  shall  they  remember  thee  ;  behold,  thou  hast  been  wroth,  and 
we  have  sinned ;  in  them  is  perpetuity,  and  we  shall  be  saved.  There  is 
perhaps  no  sentence  in  Isaiah,  or  indeed  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  has 
more  divided  and  perplexed  interpreters,  or  on  which  the  ingenuity  and 
learning  of  the  modern  writers  have  thrown  less  light.  To  enumerate  the 
various  interpretations,  would  be  endless  and  of  no  avail.  Gesenius  pro- 
fesses to  recite  them,  but  gives  only  a  selection.  A  more  full  detail  is  fur- 
nished by  Vitringa  and  Rosenmiiller,  and  in  Poole's  Synopsis.  Nothing 
more  will  here  be  attempted  than  to  give  the  reader  some  idea  of  the  various 
senses  which  have  been  attached  to  the  particular  expressions,  as  a  means 
of  showing  that  we  have  at  best  but  a  choice  of  difficulties,  and  of  procuring 
for  our  own  exposition  a  more  favourable  hearing  than  it  might  be  thought 
entitled  to  in  other  circumstances.  The  first  verb  has  been  variously  taken 
in  the  sense  of  meeting  as  an  enemy  and  meeting  as  a  friend,  making  a 
covenant,  removing  out  of  life,  interceding,  and  accepting  intercession.  It 
has  been  construed  as  a  simple  affirmation,  both  in  the  past  and  present 
form  ;  as  a  conditional  expression  (si  incidas)  ;  and  as  the  expression  of  a 
wish  (utinam  offenderes).  The  next  verb  has  been  also  treated  both  as  a 
direct  and  as  a  relative  expression,  they  will  remember  thee,  and  those  who 
remember  thee.  Thy  ways  has  been  explained  to  mean  the  way  of  God's 
commandments  and  of  his  providential  dispensations.  In  them  has  been 
referred  to  ways,  to  sins,  to  sufferings,  to  the  older  race  of  Israelites,  tsis 
has  been  treated  as  a  noun  and  as  an  adverb  ;  as  meaning  perpetuity,  eternity, 
a  long  time,  and  for  ever.  S'^^'S  has  been  changed  to  "-s: ,  and  the  common 
reading  has  been  construed  interrogatively  (shall  or  could  we  be  saved?), 
optatively  (may  we  be  saved),  and  indicatively,  present,  past,  and  future 
(we  have  been,  are,  or  shall  be  saved).  Of  the  various  combinations  cf 
these  elements  on  record,  the  most  important  in  relation  to  the  first  clause 
are  the  following  :  Thou  hast  taken  away  those  who  rejoiced  to  do  right- 
eousness and  remembered  thee  in  thy  ways  (KimchI),  Thou  didst  accept 
the  intercession  of  those  who  rejoiced  etc.  (Aben  Ezra).  Thou  didst 
encounter  or  resist  as  if  they  had  been  enemies  those  who  rejoiced  etc. 
(Cocceius).  Thou  meetest  as  a  friend  him  rejoicing  etc.  (Jerome).  If 
thou  meet  with  or  light  upon  one  rejoicing  etc.  they  will  remember  thee  in 
thy  ways  (Vitringa).  Oli  that  thou  mightest  meet  with  one  rejoicing  etc. 
(Ros). — Of  the  second  clause,  the  following  constructions  may  be  noted  : 
In  them   (i.  e.  our  sins)  we  have  been  always,  and  yet  we  shall  be  saved 


438  CHAPTERLXIV. 

(Jerome).  We  have  sinned  against  them  (i.  e.  thy  ways)  always,  and  yet 
have  been  delivered.  In  them  (i.  e.  thy  ways  of  mercy)  there  is  continu- 
ance, and  we  are  saved  (Piscator).  Thou  wast  angry  after  we  had  sinned 
against  them  (i.  e.  our  fathers),  and  yet  we  are  safe  (Vitringa).  J.  D. 
Michaelis :  we  sinned  an  eternity  (i.  e.  for  ages)  among  them  (the  heathen) 
and  apostatized  (rrE:i).  Lowth  :  thou  art  angry,  for  we  have  sinned  ; 
because  of  our  deeds  ("5"'^^? -2),  for  we  have  been  rebellious  (s'l'ssi).  Rosen- 
miiller:  we  have  sinned  in  them  (thy  ways)  of  old,  and  can  we  be  saved? 
Kocher :  in  them  (our  miseries)  there  is  long  continuance  ;  oh  may  we  be 
saved  !  Maurer:  in  tiiem  (the  ways  of  duty)  let  us  ever  go,  and  we  shall 
be  saved.  Hitzig  :  thou  wast  angry,  and  we  sinned  on  that  account  (cna) 
continually,  and  can  we  be  saved  ?  Grotius :  had  we  been  always  in  them 
(thy  ways),  we  should  have  been  saved.  Gesenius  substantially  agrees 
with  Kocher  ;  De  Wette  and  Umbreit  with  Rosenmiiller  ;  Henderson  with 
Piscator;  Ewald  with  Hitzig  ;  Hendewerk  with  Grotius;  Knobel,  partly 
with  Jerome,  partly  with  Lowth,  and  partly  with  Kocher.  It  is  curious 
enough  that  Vitringa,  whose  construction  has  probably  never  been  adopted 
by  another  writer  on  the  passage,  says  of  it  himself,  sensus  facillimus  et 
optimus  ut  quisque  viderit.  Yet  in  his  exposition  of  the  very  next  verse 
he  says,  aegre  aspicio  homines,  ne  videantur  nihil  scribere,  ea  in  certis  con- 
signare,  quae  ipsi  facile  praevideant  neminem  recepturum  esse.  As  if  to 
show  that  exegetical  invention  is  not  yet  exhausted,  the  ingenious  modern 
rabbin,  Samuel  Luzzatto,  closes  his  curious  notes  on  Isaiah,  prefixed  to  the 
abridgment  of  Rosenmuller's  Scholia,  with  still  another  exposition  of  this 
verse,  and  of  the  whole  connexion,  which  deserves  to  be  stated,  were  it  only 
for  its  novelty.  He  understands  the  people  as  denying  at  the  close  of  the 
preceding  chapter  (v.  19)  that  Jehovah  had  attested  his  divinity  by  suitable 
exertion  of  his  power  in  their  behalf.  At  the  beginning  of  this  chapter  they 
correct  themselves,  and  own  that  he  has  proved  himself  able  to  secure  his 
ends  as  easily  as  fire  kindles  chaff  or  causes  water  to  boil  (v.  1)  ;  but  as  he 
does  not  do  it,  this  neglect  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  cause  or  the  occasion  of 
iheir  sins.  They  then  assure  him  that  they  know  his  ancient  deeds,  even 
when  they  were  not  looked  for  (v.  2),  and  can  compare  them  not  only  with 
the  impotence  of  idols  (v.  3),  but  with  his  present  inaction  :  '  Thou  hast  to 
do  with  those  who  remember  thee  as  joyfully  exercising  righteousness  in  thy 
ways  (or  dispensations)  ;  oh  that  thou  wouldst  persevere  in  them  (those 
ways)  forever,  that  we  might  be  saved.' — I  shall  not  attempt  to  define  what 
is  correct  and  what  erroneous  in  these  various  constructions,  but  simply  to 
justify  the  one  assumed  in  my  own  version.  The  general  meaning  of  the 
sentence  may  be  thus  expressed  in  paraphrase  :  '  Although  thou  hast  cast  off 
Israel  as  a  nation,  thou  hast  nevertheless  met  or  favourably  answered  every 
one  rejoicing  to  do  righteousness,  and  in  thy  ways  or  future  dispensations 


CHAPTER    LXIV.  439 

such  shall  still  remember  and  acknowledge  thee  ;  thou  hast  been  angry,  and 
with  cause,  for  we  have  sinned  ;  but  in  them,  thy  purposed  dispensations, 
there  is  perpetuity,  and  we  shall  be  saved.'  The  abrogation  of  the  old 
economy,  though  fatal  to  the  national  pre-eminence  of  Israel,  was  so  far 
from  destroying  the  true  church  or  the  hopes  of  true  believers,  that  it  revealed 
the  way  of  life  more  clearly  than  ever,  and  substituted  for  an  insufficient, 
temporary  system,  a  complete  and  everlasting  one.  In  this  construction  of 
the  sentence,  the  verb  s?J5  and  the  noun  tibis  are  taken  in  their  usual  sense, 
and  the  pronoun  in  ens  refers  to  its  natural  antecedent  ^'^^yi . 

V.  5.  And  we  were  like  the  unclean  all  of  us,  and  like  a  filthy  garment 
all  our  righteousnesses  (virtues  or  good  works),  and  ive  faded  like  the  (fading) 
leaf  all  of  us,  and  our  iniquities  like  the  wind  will  take  us  up  (or  carry 
us  away).  Having  shown  what  they  are  or  hope  to  be  through  the  mercy 
of  God  and  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  ihey  state  more  fully  what  they  are 
in  themselves,  and  what  they  must  expect  to  be  if  left  to  themselves.  This 
twofold  reference  to  their  past  experience  and  their  future  destiny  accounts 
for  the  transition  from  the  praeter  to  the  future,  without  arbitrarily  confound- 
ing them  together. — Vitringa  makes  J*'?^^!  descriptive  of  a  leper,  which  is 
wholly  arbitrary  ;  the  adjective  appears  to  be  used  absolutely  for  the  unclean, 
or  that  which  is  unclean,  perhaps  with  a  superlative  emphasis,  like  iv^l^n  ,  in 
eh.  60  :  22.  Vitringa  and  Gesenius  dwell  with  great  zest  and  fulness  on 
the  strict  sense  of  Ci"''^^  '15a .  Some  understand  the  comparison  with  with- 
ered leaves  as  a  part  of  the  description  of  their  sin,  while  others  apply  it  to 
their  punishment.  The  first  hypothesis  is  favoured  by  the  difference  of  the 
tenses,  which  has  been  already  noticed  :  the  last  by  the  parallelism  of  the 
clauses.  It  is  probable,  however,  that  here  as  in  ch.  1  :  4  the  two  things 
ran  together  in  the  writer's  mind,  and  that  no  refined  distinction  as  to  this 
point  was  intended.  (With  the  figures  of  the  last  clause  compare  ch.  57  :  13. 
Ps.  1:1.  Job  27  :  21.)  Hilzig  and  Hendewerk  apply  this  last  expression 
to  the  actual  deportation  of  the  Jews  to  Babylon.  Vitringa,  having  satisfied 
himself  that  this  whole  context  has  respect  to  the  present  exile  and  disper- 
sion of  the  Jews,  takes  pleasure  in  applying  the  particular  expressions  to  the 
circumstances  of  that  great  affliction.  It  is  very  remarkable,  however,  that 
in  this,  as  in  other  cases  heretofore  considered,  there  is  no  expression 
which  admits  of  this  application  exclusively,  and  none  which  admit  of  it  at 
all  hut  for  their  generality  and  vagueness,  which  would  equally  admit  an 
application  to  any  other  period  of  distress  which  had  been  previously  set 
down  as  the  specific  subject  of  the  prophecy. 

V.  6.  Arid  there  is  no  one  calling  on  thy  name,  rousing  himself  to  lay 
hold  on  thee  ;  for  thou  hast  hid  thy  face  from  us,  and  hast  melted  us  because 


440  CHAPTERLXIV. 

of  (or  hy  means  of)  our  iniquities.  Tlie  German  writers  make  the  whole 
historical  and  retrospective,  so  as  to  throw  what  is  here  described  far  enough 
back  to  be  the  antecedent  and  procuring  cause  of  the  Babylonish  exile. 
But  although  there  is  evident  allusion  to  the  past  implied  in  the  very  form 
of  the  expression,  the  description  reaches  to  the  present  also,  and  describes 
not  only  what  the  speakers  were,  but  what  they  are  when  considered  in 
themselves,  as  well  as  the  effects  of  their  own  weakness  and  corruption, 
which  they  have  already  experienced. — Calling  on  the  name  of  God  is  here 
used  in  its  proper  sense  of  praying  to  him  and  invoking  his  assistance  and 
protection  ;  which  idea  is  expressed  still  more  strongly  by  the  next  phrase, 
rousing  himself  (which  implies  a  just  view  of  the  evil  and  a  strenuous  exer- 
tion to  correct  it)  to  lay  hold  upon  thee,  a  strong  figure  for  attachment  to  a 
person  and  reliance  on  him. — Lowth's  version  of  the  next  words,  'therefore 
thou  hast  hidden,'  is  wholly  unauthorized  and  wholly  unnecessary,  since  the 
withdrawal  of  divine  grace  is  constantly  spoken  of  in  Scripture  both  as  the 
cause  and  the  effect  of  men's  continued  alienation  from  God.  Grotius, 
Cappellus,  Houbigant,  Lowth,  and  Ewald,  read  i3;;^n  from  p^,  'thou  hast 
delivered  us  into  the  hand  of  our  iniquities.'  (See  Gen.  14  :  20.  Prov.  4  :  9.) 
This  sense  is  also  expressed  by  several  of  the  ancient  versions,  but  has  pro- 
bably arisen  not  from  a  difference  of  text,  but  from  a  wish  to  assimilate  the 
verb  to  the  following  expression,  in  the  hand.  Gesenius  and  most  of  the 
late  writers,  suppose  sit^  in  this  one  place  to  have  the  transitive  sense  of 
causing  to  dissolve,  in  which  twofold  usage  it  resembles  the  corresponding 
English  verb  to  mdt.  Hitzig  notes  this  among  the  indications  of  a  later 
writer,  notwithstanding  the  analogous  use  of  "^'iJ  by  Amos  (9  :  14).  In  the 
hand  may  either  mean  by  means  of,  in  the  midst  of,  or  because  of;  or  we 
may  suppose  with  Rosenmiiller  that  the  phrase  strictly  means,  thou  dost 
melt  us  into  the  hand  of  our  iniquities,  i.  e.  subject  us  to  them,  make  us 
unable  to  resist  thein,  and  passively  submissive  to  their  power. 

V.  7.  And  noiv,  Jehovah,  our  father  (art)  thou,  ivc  the  clay  and  thou 
our  ijottcr,  and  the  work  of  thy  hands  (are)  we  all.  Instead  of  relying  upon 
any  supposed  merits  of  their  own,  they  appeal  to  their  very  dependence  upon 
God  as  a  reason  why  he  should  have  mercy  on  them.  Lowth  follows  two 
editions  and  five  manuscripts  in  reading  t^nx  twice,  which  repetition  has 
great  force,  he  thinks,  whereas  the  other  woixl  may  well  be  spared.  In  other 
cases  where  a  word  is  repeated  in  the  common  text,  he  substitutes  a  differ- 
ent one,  because  the  repetition  is  inelegant.  The  Bishop's  judgment  upon 
such  points  was  continually  warped  by  his  predominant  desire  to  change  the 
text.  He  overlooked  in  this  case  the  obvious  use  of  notv,  not  merely  as  a 
particle  of  time,  but  as  a  formula  of  logical  resumption,  which  could  not  be 
omitted  without  obscuring  the  relation  of  this  verse  to  the  preceding  context, 


CH  A  P  T  E  R    LX  I  V.  441 

as  a  summing  up  of  its  appeals  and  arguments.  Vitringa  regards  npix  as  the 
origin  of  the  Homeric  arza,  lina  ;  but  the  Hebrew  word  is  not  expressive 
of  endearment,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the  sense.  The  Prophet  here 
resumes  the  thought  of  ch.  63  :  16,  where,  as  here,  the  paternity  ascribed 
to  God  is  not  that  of  natural  creation  in  the  case  of  individuals,  but  the  cre- 
ation of  the  church  or  chosen  people,  and  of  Israel  as  a  spiritual  and  ideal 
person.  The  figure  of  the  potter  and  the  clay,  implying  absolute  authority 
and  power,  is  used  twice  before  (ch.  29  :  6.  45  :  9),  and  is  one  of  the  con- 
necting links  between  this  book  and  the  acknowledged  Isaiah. — There  is 
more  dignity  in  the  original  expression  than  in  the  English  phrase  our  potter, 
as  the  Hebrew  word  properly  denotes  one  forming  or  imparting  shape  to  any 
thing,  though  specially  applied  in  usage  to  a  workman  in  clay,  when  that 
material  is  mentioned.  Lowth  retains  the  general  meaning,  but  in  order  to 
avoid  the  ambiguity  attending  the  word  former,  treats  it  as  a  finite  verb, 
thou  hast  formed  us,  which  is  clear  enough,  but  inexact  and  drawling.  The 
use  of  the  word  all  in  this  verse,  and  its  emphatic  repetition  in  the  next, 
exclude  the  application  of  the  passage  to  an  idolatrous  party  in  the  Baby- 
lonish exile,  even  if  that  limitation  would  be  otherwise  admissible.  The 
same  plea,  derived  from  the  relation  of  the  creature  to  the  maker,  is  used  in 
Ps.  138  :  8,  forsake  not  the  work  of  thy  hands.  (Compare  Ps.  76  :  1. 
79  :  1.)  In  either  case  there  is  a  tacit  appeal  to  the  covenant  and  promise 
in  Gen.  17  :  7.  Lev.  26  :  42-15.  Deut.  7  :  6.  26  :  17,  18. 

V.  8.  Be  not  angry,  oh  Jehovah,  to  extremity,  and.  do  not  to  eternity 
remember  guilt ;  lo,  look,  ive  pray  thee,  thy  people  (^arc)  we  all.  This  is 
the  application  of  the  argument  presented  in  the  foregoing  verse,  the  actual 
prayer  founded  on  the  fact  there  stated.  The  common  version  of  ix^"n? 
(very  sore')  fails  to  reproduce  the  form  of  the  original  expression,  as  consist- 
ing of  a  preposition  and  a  noun.  This  is  faithfully  conveyed  in  Lowth's 
version  {to  the  uttermost),  and  still  more  in  Henderson's  (Co  excess)  ;  although 
the  latter  is  objectionable  as  suggesting  the  idea  of  injustice  or  moral  wrong, 
which  is  avoided  in  the  version  above  iriven.  The  first  defect  is  also  charire- 
able  upon  the  common  version  of  "^"^  ,  for  ever  ;  which,  although  a  fair  equi- 
valent, and  perfectly  sufficient  in  all  ordinary  cases,  is  neither  so  exact  nor 
so  expressive  as  the  literal  translation  in  the  case  before  us,  where  there 
seems  to  be  an  intentional  regard  to  the  peculiar  form  and  sound  as  well  as 
to  the  meaning  of  the  sentence.  The  common  version  is  besides  defective, 
or  at  least  ambiguous,  in  seeming  to  make  'n  a  verb  and  NJ  a  particle  of 
time  ;  w  hereas  the  former  is  an  interjection,  and  the  latter  the  peculiar  Hebrew 
formula  of  courteous  or  importunate  entreaty. 

V.  9.    Thy  holy  cities  are  a  desert,  Zion  is  a  desert,  Jerusalem  a  tvaste. 


442  CHAPTERLXIV. 

By  holy  cities,  Grotius  understands  the  towns  of  Judah  ;  Vltringa,  Jerusalem 
alone,  considered  as  consisting  of  two  towns,  the  upper  and  the  lower,  here 
called  Zion  and  Jerusalem,  though  each  of  these  names  sometimes  compre- 
hends the  whole,  and  the  latter  is  dual  in  its  very  form.     Gesenius  cites 
Ps.  78  :  54  to  show  that  even  the  frontier  of  the  land  was  reckoned  holy, 
and  that  its  cities  might  he  naturally  so  described  likewise.     But  the  ques- 
tion is  not  one  of  possibility  or  propriety,  but  of  actual  usage  ;    not  what 
they  might  be  called,  but  what  they  are  called.    The  passage  in  the  Psalms, 
moreover,  is  itself  too  doubtful  to  throw  light  upon  the  one  before  us.     A 
better  argument  is  that  of  Hitzig,  in  his  note  on  ch.  63  :  18,  drawn  from  the 
use  of  the  phrase  iiJip  n^is  by  Zechariah   (2  :  16)   in  application  to  the 
whole.     Even  this,  however,  is  not  conclusive  ;  since  the  writer,  if  he  had 
intended  to  employ  the  terms  in  this  wide  sense,  would  hardly  have  confined 
his  specifications  in  the  other  clause  to  Zion  and  Jerusalem.     In  any  case, 
these  must  be  regarded  as  the  chief  if  not  the  only  subjects  of  his  proposi- 
tion.— There  is  something  worthy  of  attention  in  the  use  here  made  of  the 
substantive  verb  sr^n .     To  express  mere  present  existence,  Hebrew  usage 
employs  no  verb  at  all,  though  the  pronoun  which  would  be  its  subject  is 
occasionally  introduced.     The    preterite  form   of  the    verb  as   here   used 
must  either   have  the  sense  of  was,  in   reference  to   a  definite  time   past, 
or  has  been,  implying  a  continuation  of  the  same    state    till  the  present. 
The   former  meaning  is  excluded  and  the  latter  rendered  necessary  by  the 
obvious  allusions  in  the  context  to  the  evils  mentioned  as  being  still  experi- 
enced.    To  express  the  idea  has  become,  which  is  given  in  some  versions, 
usage  would  require  the  verb  to  be  connected  with  the  noun  by  the  prepo- 
sition h.     On   the  whole,  the  true  sense  of  the  verse,  expressed  or  implied, 
appears  to  be  that  Zion  has  long  been  a  desolation  and  Jerusalem  a  waste. 

V.  10.  Our  house  of  holiness  and  beauty  (in)  ivhich  our  fathers  praised 
thee  has  been  burned  up  vnth  fire,  and  all  our  delights  (or  desirable  places) 
have  become  a  desolation.  The  elliptical  use  of  the  relative  in  reference 
to  place  is  the  same  as  in  Gen.  39  :  20.  Burned  up,  literally,  become  a 
burning  of  fire,  as  in  ch.  9  ;  6.  The  reference  in  this  verse  is  of  course  to 
the  destruction  of  the  temple,  but  to  which  destruction  is  disputed.  The 
modern  Germans  all  refer  it  to  the  Babylonian  conquest,  when  the  temple, 
as  we  are  expressly  told,  was  burnt  (Jer.  52  :  13  );  Grotius  to  its  profana- 
tion by  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  at  which  lime,  however,  it  was  not  consumed 
by  fire  ;  Vitringa  and  many  later  writers,  with  the  Jews  themselves,  to  its 
destruction  by  the  Romans,  since  which  the  city  and  the  land  have  lain 
desolate.  To  the  first  and  last  of  these  events  the  words  are  equally  appro- 
priate. Either  hypothesis  being  once  assumed,  the  particular  expressions 
admit  of  being  easily  adapted  to  it.     With  our  own  hypothesis  the  passage 


CHAP  T  E  R    LX  V.  443 

may  be  reconciled  in  several  different  ways.  There  is  nothing,  however, 
in  the  terms  themselves,  or  in  the  analogy  of  prophetic  language,  to  forbid 
our  understanding  this  as  a  description  of  the  desolations  of  the  church  itself 
expressed  by  figures  borrowed  from  the  old  economy  and  from  the  ancient 
history  of  Israel.  If  literally  understood,  the  destruction  of  the  temple  and 
the  holy  city  may  be  here  lamented  as  a  loss  not  merely  to  the  Jewish 
nation,  but  to  the  church  of  God  to  which  they  rightfully  belong  and  by 
which  they  ought  yet  to  be  recovered,  a  sense  of  which  obligation  blended 
with  some  superstitious  errors  gave  occasion  to  the  fanatical  attempt  of  the 
crusades.     (See  above,  on  ch.  63  :  18.) 

V.  12.  TVilt  thou  for  these  (things)  restrain  thyself,  oh  Jehovah,  wilt 
thou  keep  silence  and  ajflict  us  to  extremity  1  This  is  simply  another  appli- 
cation of  the  argument  by  way  of  an  importunate  appeal  to  the  divine  com- 
passions. Self-restraint  and  silence,  as  applied  to  God,  are  common  figures 
for  inaction  and  apparent  indifference  to  the  interests  and  especially  the  suf- 
ferings of  his  people.  (See  above,  on  ch.  42:  14  and  63  :  15.)  The 
question  is  not  whether  God  will  remain  silent  in  spite  of  what  his  people 
suffered,  but  whether  the  loss  of  their  external  advantages  will  induce  him 
to  forsake  them.  The  question  as  in  many  other  cases  implies  a  negation 
of  the  strongest  kind.  The  destruction  of  the  old  theocracy  was  God's  own 
act  and  was  designed  to  bring  the  church  under  a  new  and  far  more  glorious 
dispensation.  How  the  loss  of  a  national  organization  and  pre-eminence 
was  to  be  made  good  is  fully  stated  in  the  following  chapter. 


CHAPTER    LXV. 


The  great  enigma  of  Israel's  simultaneous  loss  and  gain  is  solved  by  a 
prediction  of  the  calling  of  the  gentiles,  v.  1.  This  is  connected  with  the 
obstinate  unfaithfulness  of  the  chosen  people,  v.  2.  They  are  represented 
under  the  two  main  aspects  of  their  character  at  different  periods,  as  gross 
idolaters  and  as  pharisaical  bigots,  vs.  3-5.  Their  casting  off  was  not  occa- 
sioned by  the  sins  of  one  generation  but  of  many,  vs.  6,  7.  But  even  in 
this  rejected  race  there  was  a  chosen  remnant,  in  whom  the  promises  shall 
be  fulfilled,  vs.  8-10.  He  then  reverts  to  the  idolatrous  Jews  and  threatens 
them  with  condign  punishment,  vs.  11,  12.  The  fate  of  the  unbelieving 
carnal  Israel  is  compared  with  that  of  the  true  spiritual  Israel,  vs.  13-16. 


444  CHAPTERLXV. 

The  gospel  economy  is  described  as  a  new  creation,  v.  17.  Its  blessings 
are  described  under  glowing  figures  borrowed  from  the  old  dispensation,  vs. 
18,  19.  Premature  death  shall  be  no  longer  known,  v.  20.  Possession 
and  enjoyment  shall  no  longer  be  precarious,  vs.  21-23.  Their  very  desires 
shall  be  anticipated,  v.  24.  All  animosities  and  noxious  influences  shall 
cease  for  ever,  v.  25. 

V.  1.  /  have  been  inquired  of  by  those  that  ashed  not,  1  have  been 
found  by  those  that  sought  me  not,  I  have  said,  Behold  me,  behold  me,  to  a 
nation  (that)  was  not  called  by  my  name.  There  is  an  apparent  inconsis- 
tency between  the  first  two  members  of  the  sentence  in  the  English  Version, 
arising  from  the  use  of  the  same  verb  (sought)  to  express  two  very  different 
Hebrew  verbs.  ilJ|52  is  here  used  in  the  general  sense  of  seeking  or  trying 
to  obtain,  ilJ'^'n  in  the  technical  religious  sense  of  consulting  as  an  oracle.  In 
the  latter  case  the  difficulty  of  translation  is  enhanced  by  the  peculiar  form 
of  the  original,  not  simply  passive  but  reflexive,  and  capable  of  being  ren- 
dered in  our  idiom  only  by  periphrasis.  The  exact  sense  seems  to  be,  I 
allowed  myself  to  be  consulted,  I  afforded  access  to  myself  for  the  purpose 
of  consultation.  This  is  not  a  mere  conjectural  deduction  from  the  form  of 
the  Hebrew  verb  or  from  general  analogy,  but  a  simple  statement  of  the 
actual  usage  of  this  very  word,  as  when  Jehovah  says  again  and  again  of 
the  ungodly  exiles  that  he  will  not  be  inquired  of  or  consulted  by  them  (Ez. 
14  :  3.  20  :  3),  1.  e.  with  effect  or  to  any  useful  purpose.  In  this  connexion 
it  is  tantamount  to  saying  that  he  will  not  hear  them,  answer  them,  or  reveal 
himself  to  them  ;  all  which  or  equivalent  expressions  have  been  used  by  dif- 
ferent writers  in  the  translation  of  the  verse  before  us.  There  is  nothing 
therefore  incorrect  In  substance,  though  the  form  be  singular,  in  the  Septua- 
gint  version  of  this  verb,  retained  in  the  New  Testament,  viz.  fficfavr^g  eye- 
rt'j&rjv,  I  became  manifest,  i.  e.  revealed  myself.  The  object  of  the  verb 
asked,  if  exact  uniformity  be  deemed  essential,  may  be  readily  supplied 
from  the  parallel  expression  sought  me. — Behold  me,  or  as  It  is  sometimes 
rendered  in  the  English  Bible,  Acre  I  am,  is  the  usual  idiomatic  Hebrew 
answer  to  a  call  by  name,  and  when  ascribed  to  God  contains  an  assurance 
of  his  presence  rendered  more  emphatic  by  the  repetition.  (See  above,  ch. 
52 :  6.  58  :  9.)  It  is  therefore  equivalent  to  being  Inquired  of  and  being 
found.  This  last  expression  has  occurred  before  in  ch.  55  :  6,  and  as  here 
in  combination  with  the  verb  to  seek.  A  people  not  called  by  my  name, 
i.  e.  not  recognised  or  known  as  my  people.  (See  above,  ch.  48:  2.)  All 
interpreters  agree  that  this  is  a  direct  continuation  of  the  foregoing  context, 
and  most  of  them  regard  it  as  the  answer  of  Jehovah  to  the  expostulations 
and  petitions  there  presented  by  his  people.  The  modern  Germans  and  the 
Jews  apply  both  this  verb  and  the  next  to  Israel.     The  obvious  objection 


C  H  A  PTE  R    LX  V.  445 

is  that  Israel  even  in  its  worst  estate  could  never  be  described  as  a  nation 
which  had  not  been  called  by  the  name  of  Jehovah.  Jarchi's  solution  of 
this  difficulty,  namely,  that  they  treated  him  as  if  they  were  not  called  by 
his  name,  is  an  evasion  tending  to  destroy  the  force  of  language  and  con- 
found all  its  distinctions.  It  is  a  standing  characteristic  of  the  Jews  in  the 
Old  Testament,  that  they  were  called  by  the  name  of  Jehovah  ;  but  if  they 
may  also  be  described  in  terms  directly  opposite,  whenever  the  interpreter 
prefers  it,  then  may  any  thing  mean  any  thing.  With  equal  right  may  we  allege 
that  the  seed  of  Abraham  in  ch.  41:8  means  those  who  act  as  if  they  were 
his  seed,  and  that  the  nation  who  had  never  known  Messiah  (ch.  55  :  5) 
means  a  nation  that  might  just  as  well  have  never  known  him.  On  the 
other  hand,  Kimchi's  explanation  of  the  clause  as  meaning  that  they  were 
unwilling  to  be  called  his  people,  is  as  much  at  variance  with  the  facts  of 
history  as  Jarchi's  with  the  principles  of  language.  In  all  their  alienations, 
exiles,  and  dispersions,  the  children  of  Israel  have  still  retained  that  title  as 
their  highest  glory  and  the  badge  of  all  their  tribes.  The  incongruity  of 
this  interpretation  of  the  first  verse  is  admitted  by  Rabbi  Moshe  Haccohen 
among  the  Jews,  and  by  Hendewerk  among  the  Germans  ;  the  last  of  whom 
pronounces  it  impossible,  and  therefore  understands  the  passage  as  applying 
to  the  Persians  under  Cyrus,  who,  without  any  previous  relation  to  Jehovah, 
had  been  publicly  and  honourably  called  into  his  service.  A  far  more 
obvious  and  natural  application  may  be  made  to  the  gentiles  generally, 
whose  vocation  is  repeatedly  predicted  in  this  book,  and  might  be  here  used 
with  powerful  effect  in  proof  that  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  was  the  result  of 
their  own  obstinate  perverseness,  not  of  God's  unfaithfulness  or  want  of 
power.  This  is  precisely  Paul's  interpretation  of  the  passage  in  Rom. 
9:20,  21,  where  he  does  not  as  in  many  other  cases  merely  borrow  the 
expressions  of  the  Prophet,  but  formally  interprets  them,  applying  this  verse 
to  the  gentiles  and  then  adding,  '  but  to  Israel  (or  of  Israel)  he  saith  '  what 
follows  in  the  next  verse.  The  same  intention  to  expound  the  Prophet's 
language  is  clear  from  the  apostle's  mention  of  Isaiah's  boldness  in  thus 
shocking  the  most  cherished  prepossessions  of  the  Jews.  Grotius  takes  no 
notice  of  this  apostolical  interpretation,  but  applies  both  verses  to  the  Jews 
in  Babylon,  although  Abarbenel  himself  had  been  constrained  to  abandon 
it,  and  understand  the  passage  as  referring  to  the  Jews  in  Egypt.  Gesenius 
merely  pleads  for  the  reference  to  Babylon  as  equally  admissible  with  that 
which  Paul  makes,  and  as  better  suited  to  the  context  in  Isaiah.  Hiizig  as 
usual  goes  further,  and  declares  it  to  be  evident  (offenhar)  that  the  word^ 
relate  only  to  the  Jews  as  alienated  from  Jehovah.  This  contempt  for 
Paul's  authority  is  less  surprising  in  a  writer  who  describes  Jehovah's 
answer  to  the  expostulations  of  the  people  as  moving  in  a  circle,  and 
pronounces  both  incompetent  to  solve  the   question,  why  Jehovah  should 


446  CH  A  PTE  R    LX  V. 

entice  men  into  sin  and  then  punish  them.  Instead  of  8<"7P  Lowth  reads  x'^l? 
(never  invoked  my  name)  on  the  authority  of  the  Septuagint  (^exaXEaav). 
The  last  clause  is  not  included  in  Paul's  quotation. 

V.  2.  I  have  spread  (or  stretched)  out  my  hands  all  the  day  (or  every 
day)  to  a  rebellious  people,  those  going  the  way  not  good,  after  their  own 
thoughts  (or  designs).  The  gesture  mentioned  in  the  first  clause  is  variously 
explained  as  a  gesture  of  simple  calling,  of  instruction,  of  invitation,  of 
persuasion.  According  to  Hitzig  it  is  an  offer  of  help  on  God's  part, 
corresponding  to  the  same  act  as  a  prayer  for  help  on  man's.  (See  ch. 
I  :  15.)  All  agree  that  it  implies  a  gracious  offer  of  himself  and  of  his 
favour  to  the  people.  Whether  all  the  day  or  eve7-y  day  be  the  correct 
translation,  the  idea  meant  to  be  conveyed  is  evidently  that  of  frequent 
repetition,  or  rather  of  unremitting  constancy.  There  is  no  need  of  supposing 
with  Vitringa  and  others,  that  it  specifically  signifies  the  period  of  the  old 
dispensation.  The  rebellious  people  is  admitted  upon  all  hands  to  be 
Israel.  The  last  clause  is  an  amplification  and  explanatory  paraphrase  of 
the  first.  Going  and  ivay  are  common  figures  for  the  course  of  life.  A  way 
not  good,  is  a  litotes  or  meiosis  for  a  bad  or  for  the  worst  way.  (See  Ps. 
36  :  5.  Ezek.  36  :  31.  Thoughts,  not  opinions  merely,  but  devices  and 
mventions  of  wickedness.  (See  above,  on  ch.  55  :  7.)  With  this  descrip- 
tion compare  that  of  Moses,  Deut.  32  :  5,  6. 

V.  3.  The  people  angering  me  to  my  face  continually,  sacrificing  in  the 
gardens,  and  censing  on  the  bricks.  We  have  now  a  more  detailed  descrip- 
tion of  the  ivay  not  good,  and  the  devices  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  verse. 
The  construction  is  continued,  the  people  provoking  me  etc.  being  in  direct 
apposition  with  the  rebellious  people  going  etc.  To  my  face,  not  secretly 
or  timidly  (Job  31  :  27),  but  openly  and  in  defiance  of  me  (ch.  3  :  9.  Job 
1:11),  which  is  probably  the  meaning  o(  before  me  in  the  first  command- 
ment (Ex.  20  :  3).  Animal  offerings  and  fumigations  are  combined  to 
represent  all  kinds  of  sacrifice.  As  to  the  idolatrous  use  of  groves  and  gar- 
dens, see  above,  on  ch.  57  :  5,  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  20.  Vitringa's 
distinction  between  groves  and  gardens  is  gratuitous,  the  Hebrew  word 
denoting  any  enclosed  and  carefully  cultivated  ground,  whether  chiefly 
occupied  by  trees  or  not.  Of  the  last  words,  on  the  bricks,  there  are  four 
interpretations.  The  first  is  that  of  many  older  writers,  who  suppose  an 
allusion  to  the  prohibition  in  Exod.  20  :  24,  25.  But  bricks  are  not  there 
mentioned,  and  can  hardly  come  under  the  description  of  "hewn  stone," 
besides  the  doubt  which  overhangs  the  application  of  that  law,  and  especially 
the  cases  in  which  it  was  meant  to  operate.  This  evil  is  not  remedied  but 
rather  aggravated,  by  supposing  an  additional  allusion  to  Lev.  26  :  1  and 


CHAPTERLXV.  447 

Num.  33  :  52,  as  Grotius  does,  and  understanding  by  the  bricks  such  as 
were  Impressed  with  unlawful  decorations  or  inscriptions.  A  second  hypo- 
thesis is  that  of  Bochart,  who  supposes  bricks  to  mean  roofing-tiles  (Mark 
2  :  4.  Luke  5  :  19),  and  the  phrase  to  be  descriptive  of  idolatry  as  practised 
on  the  roofs  of  houses.  (2  Kings  23  :  12.  Jer.  19  :  13.  32  :  29.  Zeph. 
I  :  5.)  Ewald  approves  of  this  interpretation,  and,  to  make  the  parallelism 
perfect,  changes  nisa  gardens  to  fii-J  roofs.  Vitringa^s  objection  to  this 
reading,  drawn  from  the  analogy  of  ch.  1  :  29  and  56  :  17,  Ewald  converts 
into  a  reason  for  it,  by  supposing  the  common  text  to  have  arisen  from 
assimilation.  An  objection  not  so  easily  disposed  of  is  the  one  alleged  by 
Knobel,  namely,  that  Hebrew  usage  would  require  a  different  preposi- 
tion before  niJa .  A  third  hypothesis  is  that  of  Rosenmiiller,  who  supposes 
an  allusion  to  some  practice  now  unknown,  but  possibly  connected  with 
the  curiously  inscribed  bricks  found  in  modern  times  near  the  site  of  ancient 
Babylon.  Gesenius  hesitates  between  this  and  a  fourth  interpretation, 
much  the  simplest  and  most  natural  of  all,  viz.  that  the  phrase  means 
nothing  more  than  altars,  or  at  most  altars  slightly  and  hastily  constructed. 
Of  such  altars  bricks  may  be  named  as  the  materials,  or  tiles  as  the  superficial 
covering. 

V.  4.  Sitting  in  the  graves  and  in  the  holes  they  will  lodge,  eating  the 
Jlesh  of  sivine,  and  broth  of  filthy  things  (is  in)  their  vessels.  All  agree 
that  this  verse  is  intended  to  depict  in  revolting  colours  the  idolatrous 
customs  of  the  people.  Nor  is  there  much  doubt  as  to  the  construction  of 
the  sentence,  or  the  force  of  the  particular  expressions.  But  the  obscurity 
which  overhangs  the  usage  referred  to,  affords  full  scope  to  the  archaeological 
propensities  of  modern  commentatois,  some  of  whom  pass  by  in  silence 
questions  of  the  highest  exegetical  importance,  while  they  lavish  without 
stint  or  scruple  time  and  labour,  ingenuity  and  learning,  on  a  vain  attempt 
to  settle  questions  which  throw  no  light  on  the  drift  of  the  passage,  nor 
even  on  the  literal  translation  of  the  words,  but  are  investigated  merely  for 
their  own  sake  or  their  bearing  upon  other  objects,  so  that  Rosenmiiller 
interrupts  himself  in  one  of  these  antiquarian  inquiries  by  sayinnr,  sed 
redeamus  ad  locum  vatis  in  quo  explicando  versamur.  Such  are  the 
questions,  whether  these  idolaters  sat  in  the  graves  or  among  them ;  whether 
for  necromantic  purposes,  i.  e.  to  interrogate  the  dead,  or  to  perform  sacri- 
ficial rites  to  their  memory,  or  to  obtain  demoniacal  inspiration  ;  whether 
DiniS3  means  monuments,  or  caves,  or  temples ;  whether  they  were  lod,o-ed 
in  for  licentious  purposes,  or  to  obtain  prophetic  dreams ;  whether  they  are 
charged  with  simply  eating  pork  for  food,  or  after  it  had  been  sacrificed  to 
idols  ;  whether  swine's  flesh  was  forbidden  for  medicinal  reasons,  or  because 


448  C  H  AP  T  E  R    LX  V. 

the  heaihen  sacrificed  and  ate  it,  or  on  other  grounds ;  whether  P'^fi  means 
broth  or  bits  of  meat,  and  if  the  former,  whether  it  was  so  called  on  account 
of  the  bread  broken  in  it,  or  for  other  reasons,  etc.  The  only  question  of 
grammatical  construction  which  has  found  a  place  among  these  topics  of 
pedantic  disquisition,  is  as  such  entitled  to  consideration,  though  of  small 
importance  with  respect  to  the  interpretation  of  the  passage.  It  is  the 
question  whether  t.'n^^'s  is  to  be  governed  by  a  preposition  understood 
(Rosenmiiller),  or  explained  as  an  accusative  of  place  (Gesenius),  or  as  the 
predicate  of  the  proposition,  broth  of  abominable  meats  are  their  vessels 
(Maurer).  This  last  construction  is  retained  by  Knobel,  but  he  changes 
the  whole  meaning  of  the  clause  by  explaining  the  last  word  to  mean  their 
instruments  or  implements,  and  giving  to  P~s  the  sense  of  bits  or  pieces  : 
'  pieces  of  abominable  meat  are  their  instruments  of  divination,'  in  allusion  to 
themantic  inspection  of  the  sacrificial  victims  by  the  heathen  priests  as  means 
of  ascertaining  future  events.  Even  if  we  should  successively  adopt 
and  then  discard  every  one  of  the  opinions  some  of  which  have  now  been 
mentioned,  the  essential  meaning  of  the  verse  would  still  remain  the  same, 
as  a  highly  wrought  description  of  idolatrous  abominations. 

V".  5.  The  (^men)  saying,  Keep  to  thyself,  come  not  near  to  me,  for  I 
am,  holy  to  thee,  these  (are)  a  smoke  in  my  wrath,  a  fire  burning  all  the  day 
(or  every  day).  Gesenius's  obscure  addition  mid  noch  sagt  is  faithfully 
transcribed  by  Noyes,  ivho  yet  say.  The  peculiar  phrase  ?i"^^x  -^p  is 
analogous  but  not  precisely  equivalent  to  "^"i^'^i;  in  ch,  49  :  20.  (See  above, 
p.  190.)  The  literal  translation  is  approach  to  thyself;  and  as  this  implies 
removal  from  the  speaker,  the  essential  meaning  is  correctly  expressed, 
though  in  a  very  different  form  from  the  original,  both  by  the  Septuagint 
(;7o'(j^co  an  c'/ioi')  and  by  the  Vulgate  {recede  a  me).  The  common  English 
version  {stand  by  thyself)  and  Henderson's  improvement  of  it  {keep  by 
thyself)  both  suggest  an  idea  not  contained  in  the  original,  viz.  that  of 
standing  alone,  whereas  all  that  is  expressed  by  the  Hebrew  phrase  is  the 
act  of  standing  away  from  the  speaker,  for  which  Lovvth  has  found  the 
idiomatic  equivalent  {keep  to  thyself).  Another  unusual  expression  is 
Tl-Titinp  ,  which  may  be  represented  by  the  English  words,  lam  holy  thee. 
The  Targum  resolves  this  into  'yo.'n  ^T^o^p  ,  and  Vitringa  accordingly  assumes 
an  actual  ellipsis  of  the  preposition  '^  as  a  particle  of  comparison.  But  as 
this  ellipsis  is  extremely  rare,  De  Dieu  and  Cocceius  assume  that  of  b  ,  lam 
holy  to  thee.  Gesenius  adopts  the  same  construction,  but  explains  the  ^^ 
as  a  mere  pleonasm,  and  translates  accordingly,  I  am  holy,  which  is  merely 
omitting  what  caiuiot  be  explained.  The  particle  no  doubt  expresses  general 
relation,  and  the   phrase  means,  I  am  holy  with  respect  to  thee;  and  as  this 


CHAPTER    LXV.  449 

implies  comparison,  the  same  sense  is  attained  as  by  the  old  construction, 
but  in  a  manner  more  grammatical  and  regular.     Tlie  implied  compaiison 
enables  us  to  reconcile  two  of  the  ancient  versions  as  alike  in  spirit,  although 
in  letter  flatly  contradictory.     The  Septuagint   has  /  am  pure  (i.   e.  in 
comparison  with  thee)  ;  the  Vulgate,  Thou  art  impure  (i.  e.  in  comparison 
with  me).  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  of  resorting  to  the  forced  explanation 
proposed   by  Thenius  in  a  German   periodical,  which  takes  ""P}^"!!^  in   the 
sense  of  separating,  one  which  occurs  no  where  else  in  actual  usage,  and  is 
excluded  even  from  the  etymon,  by  some  of  the  best  modern  lexicographers. 
Equally  gratuitous  is  Hitzig's  explanation  of  the  verb  (in  which  he  seems 
to  have  been  anticipated  by  Luther)  as  transitive,  and  meaning,  lest  1  hallow 
thee,   i.  e.  by   touching  thee,  a   notion  contradictory  to  that  expressed  in 
Hagg.  2  :  12,  13,  and  affording  no  good  sense  here,  as  the  fear  of  making 
others  holy,  whetlier  as  an  inconvenience  or  a  benefit,  would  hardly  have 
been  used  to  characterize  the  men  described.      As  to  the  question  who  are 
here  described,  there  are  two  main   opinions:   first,   that  the  clause  relates 
to   the  idolaters   mentioned   in   the   foregoing  verses ;  the   other,   that  it  is 
descriptive  of  a  wholly  different  class.     On  the  first  supposition,  Gesenius 
imagines  that  Jewish  converts  to  theParsee  religion  are  described  as  looking 
at  their  former  brethren  with  contempt.    On  the  other,  Henderson  assumes 
that   the  Prophet,    having    first   described    the    idolatrous   form   of  Jewish 
apostasy,  as  it  existed  in  his  own  day  and  long  after,  then  describes  the 
Pharisaical  form  of  the  same  evil,  as  it   existed  in  the  time  of  Christ,  both 
being    put  together  as  the  cause  of  the  rejection   of  the  Jews.     To  any 
specific   application  of  the   passage   to   the   Babylonish  exile,  it    may   be 
objected  that  the  practice  of  idolatry  at  that  time  by  the  Jews  can  only  be 
established   by  a   begging  of  the   question  in  expounding  this  and   certain 
parallel  passages.     The  other  explanation  is  substantially  the  true  one.   The 
great  end  which  the  Prophet  had  in   view  was  to  describe  the  unbelieving 
Jews  as  abominable  in  the  sight  of  God.     His  manner  of  expressing  this 
idea  is  poetical,  by    means  o(  figures  drawn   from   various   periods   of  their 
history,  without  intending  to  exhibit  either  of  these  periods  exclusively.    To 
a  Hebrew  writer  what  could   be  more  natural  than  to  express  the  idea  of 
religious  corruption  by  describing  its  subjects  as  idolaters,  diviners,  eaters  of 
swine's  flesh,  worshippers  of  outward  forms,  and  self-righteous  hypocrites. 
Of  such  the  text  declares  God's  abhorrence.     Smoke  and  fire  maybe  taken 
as  natural  concomitants  and  parallel  figures,  as  if  he  had  said,  against  whom 
my  wrath  smokes  and  burns  continually.     Or  the  smoke  may  represent  the 
utter  consumption    of  the  object,   and   the  fire  the  means  by  which  it  is 
effected,   which   appears  to   have  been    Luther's   idea.      That  "x  in  such 
connexions  does  not  mean  the  nose,  but  wrath  itself,  has  been  shown  in  the 
exposition  of  ch.  48  :  9.      (See  above,  p.  158.) 

29 


450  CHAPTER    LXV. 

Vs.  6,  7.  Lo,  it  is  ivriiten  before  mc.     I  will  not  rest  except  I  repay, 
and  J  will  repay  into  their  bosom  your  iniquities  and  the  iniquities  of  your 
fathers  together,  saith  Jehovah,  who   burned  incense  on  the  mountains  and 
on  the  hills  blasphemed  me,   and  1  will  measure  their  first  work  into  their 
bosom.     The  particle  at  the  beginning  calls  attention  both  to  the  magnitude 
and  certainty  of  the  event  about  to  be  predicted.-^Lowth,  for  some  reason 
unexplained,  thinks  proper  to  translate  nnsirs  is  recorded  in  writing,  which 
is   abridged  by  Noyes  to  stands  recorded,  and  still  more  by  Henderson  to 
is  recorded.      One  step  further  in  the  same  direction  brings  us  back  to  the 
simple  and  perfectly  sufficient  version  of  the  English  Bible,  it  is  written. 
This  may  serve  as  an   instructive  sample  of  the  way   in   which   the  later 
En'dish  versions  sometimes  improve  upon  the  old.     The  figure  which  these 
verbs  express  is  variously  understood  by  different  writers.     Umbreit  seems 
think   that  what  is  said   to    be   written   is   the  eternal  law^   of   retribution. 
Hitzig  and  Knobel  understand  by  it  a  booJc  of  remembrance  (Mai.  3  :  16), 
i.  e.  a  record  of  the  sins  referred  to  afterwards,  by  which  they  are  kept  per- 
petually present  to  the  memory  of  Jehovah  (Daniel  7  :  10).      Vitringa  and 
most  later  writers  understand   by  it  a  record,  not  of  the  crime,  but  of  its 
punishment,  or  rather  of  the  purpose  or  decree  to  jiunish  it  (Dan.  5  :  5,  21), 
in  reference  to  the  written  judgments  of  the  ancient  courts   (ch.    10  :  1). 
This  last  interpretation  does  not  necessarily  involve  the  supposition  that  the 
thing  here  said  to  be  written  is  the  threatening  which  immediately  follows, 
although  this  is  by  no  means  an  unnatural  construction. — /  will  not  rest  or 
be  silent,  an  expression  used  repeatedly  before  in  reference  to  the  seeming 
inaction  or  indifference  of  Jehovah.     (See  above,  ch.  42  :  14.  57  :  11,  and 
compare  Ps.  50  :  21.   Hab.  1  :  13.) — Gesenius  and  De  Welte  follow  the 
older  writers  in  translating,  /  will  not  keep  silence,  but  ivill  recompense.     But 
although  n«  "3 ,  like  the  German  sondern,  is  the  usual  adversative  after  a 
negation,  this  construction  of  the  preterite  "^Pir^a  would  be  contrary  to  usage, 
and  Di<  ^3  must  be  construed  as  it  usually  is  before  the  preterite,  as  meaning 
unless  or  until,  in  which  sense  it  is  accurately  rendered  both  by  Hitzig  (bis) 
and  Ewald  (ausser).    See  above,  on  ch.  55  :  10,  where  this  same  construc- 
tion is  gratuitously  set  aside  by  Hitzig  on  the  ground  that  it  would  argue 
too  much  knowledge  of  natural  [)hilosophy  in  a  Hebrew  writer.     (Compare 
also  2  Sam.  1  :  18.) — For  repay  into  their  bosom,  we  have  in  the  seventh 
verse  measure  into  their  bosom,  which  affords  a  clue  to  the  origin   and  real 
meaning  of  the  figure  ;  as   we  read  that  Boaz  said  to  Ruth,  Bring  the  veil 
(or  cloak)  that  is  upon  thee  and  hold  it,  and  she  held  it,  and  he  measured 
six   (measures  of)   barley  and  laid   it  on   her  (Ruth  3  :  15).      Hence  the 
phrase  to  measure  into  any  one's  bosom,  i.  e.  into  the  lap  or  the  fold  of  the 
garment  covering  the  bosom.     (See  above,  on  ch.  49  :  22.)     The  same 
6gure  is  employed  by  Jer.  32  :  18  and  in  Ps.  79  :  12,  and  is  explained  by 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    LX  V.  45I 

Rosenmiiller  in  his  Scholia  on  the  latter,  and  by  Winer  in  his  Lexicon, 
as  implying  abundance,  or  a  greater  quantity  than  one  could  carry  in  the 
hand.  (Compare  Luke  6  :  38.)  But  Gesenius  and  Maurer  understand 
the  main  idea  to  be  not  that  of  abundance,  but  of  retribution,  any  thing  being 
said  to  return  into  one's  own  bosom,  just  as  it  is  elsewhere  said  to  return  upon 
his  own  head  (Judg.  9  :  57.  Ps.  7  :  17).  Both  these  accessory  ideas  are 
appropriate  in  the  case  before  us.  In  Jer.  3'2  :  18  and  Ps.  79  :  12  the 
preposition  ^.  is  used,  and  the  same  form  is  also  found  here  in  some  manu- 
scripts, and  even  in  the  Masora  upon  the  next  verse,  though  the  hv  is  no 
more  likely  to  be  wrong  there  than  here,  nor  at  all,  according  to  Maurer, 
who  explains  it  as  denoting  motion  towards  an  object  from  above.  The 
sudden  change  from  their  to  your  at  the  beginning  of  v.  7,  has  been  com- 
monly explained  as  an  example  of  the  enallage  personae  so  frequently  occur- 
ring in  Isaiah.  Th.is  supposition  is  undoubtedly  sufficient  to  remove  all 
difficulty  from  the  syntax.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  the  change  is  not 
a  mere  grammatical  anomaly  or  license  of  construction,  but  significant,  and 
intended  to  distinguish  between  three  generations.  I  will  repay  into  their 
bosom  (that  of  your  descendants)  your  iniquities  and  the  iniquities  of  your 
fathers.  If  this  be  not  a  fanciful  distinction,  it  gives  colour  to  Henderson's 
opinion  that  the  previous  description  brings  to  view  successively  the  gross 
idolatry  of  early  times  and  the  pharisaical  hypocrisy  prevailing  at  the  time 
of  Christ.  Supposing  his  contemporaries  to  be  the  immediate  objects  of 
address,  there  would  then  be  a  distinct  allusion  to  their  idolatrous  progeni- 
tors, the  measure  of  whose  guilt  they  filled  up  (Matt.  23  :  32),  and  to  their 
children,  upon  whom  it  was  to  be  conspicuously  visited  (Luke  24  :  28). 
But  whether  this  be  so  or  not,  the  meaning  of  the  text  is  obvious,  as  leach- 
ing that  the  guilt  which  had  accumulated  through  successive  generations 
should  be  visited,  though  not  exclusively,  upon  the  last. — The  whole  of 
idolatry  is  here  summed  up  in  burning  incense  on  the  mountains,  which  are 
elsewhere  mentioned  as  a  favourite  resort  of  those  who  worshipped  idols 
(ch.  57  :  7.  Jer.  3:6.  Ez.  6  :  13.  18  :  6.  Hos.  4  :  13),  and  blaspheming 
God  upon  the  hills,  which  may  either  be  regarded  as  a  metaphorical  descrip- 
tion of  idolatry  itself,  or  strictly  taken  to  denote  the  oral  expression  of  con- 
tempt for  Jehovah  and  his  worship,  which  might  naturally  be  expected  to 
accompany  such  practices. — There  is  some  obscurity  in  the  word  n.'itJN-)  as 
here  used.  Ewald  takes  it  as  an  adverb,  meaning  first,  or  at  first  (zuerst), 
and  appears  to  understand  the  clause  as  meaning,  their  reward  (that  of  your 
fathers)  will  I  measure  first  into  their  bosom.  But  this  does  not  seem  to 
agree  with  the  previous  declaration  that  the  sons  should  suffer  for  the  fathers' 
guilt  and  for  their  own  together.  At  the  same  time,  the  construction  is  less 
natural  and  obvious  than  that  of  Gesenius  and  other  writers,  wiio  make 
njiJJxn  an  adjective   agreeing  with  !^*SQ,  their  former  work,  i.  e.  its  product 


452 


CHAPTER    LXV. 


or  reward,  as  in  ch.  40  :  10.  (See  above,  p.  11.)  The  only  sense  in 
which  it  can  be  thus  described  is  that  of  ancient,  as  distinguished  not  from 
the  subsequent  transgressions  of  the  fathers,  but  from  those  of  the  chihlren 
who  came  after  them. — According  to  the  sense  which  the  Apostle  puts 
upon  the  two  first  verses  of  this  chapter,  we  may  understand  those  now 
before  us  as  predicting  the  excision  of  the  Jews  from  the  communion  of  the 
church  and  from  their  covenant  relation  to  Jehovah,  as  a  testimony  of  his 
sore  displeasure  on  account  of  the  unfaithfulness  and  manifold  transgressions 
of  tiiat  chosen  race  throughout  its  former  history,  but  also  on  account  of 
the  obstinate  and  spiteful  unbelief  with  which  so  many  later  generations 
have  rejected  the  Messiah  for  whose  sake  alone  they  ever  had  a  national 
existence  and  enjoyed  so  many  national  advantages. 

V.  8.   Thus  saith  Jehovah,  as  {lohcn)  juice  is  found  in  the  cluster  and 
one  says,  Destroy  it  not,  for  a  blessing  is  in  it,  so  will  I  do  for  the  sake  of 
my  servants,  not  to  destroy  the  ivhole.     Gesenius  objects  to  the  translation 
of  I'-ax?  as  if  or  as  when,  in  the  Vulgate  and  many  other  versions,  on  the 
eround  that,  though  "I'^s  is  sometimes  elliptically  used  for  tvhen,  the  com- 
pound particle  never  denotes  as  when.     He  therefore  gives  it  the  conditional 
sense  of  if  or  ivhen,  as  in   Gen.  27  :  40,  and  takes  i  as  in  that  case  for  the 
sign  of  the  apodosis,  '  when  (or  if)  juice  is  found  in  the  cluster,  then  one 
says,'   etc.     But  most  interpreters  consider  it  more  natural  to  make  "I'iJ.SfS 
and  'i?  correlatives,  as  usual  in  cases  of  comparison,  equivalent  to  as  and  so 
in  Entdlsh.     We  may  then  either  supply  when,  as  Maurer  does,  or  translate 
it  strictly,  with  Ewald   and  the  English  Version,  as  the  new  wine  is  found 
in  the  cluster,  and  one  says  destroy  it  not,  so  will  I  do,  etc. — Although 
ttJiT'Pi ,  according  to  the  derivation  usually  given,  means  fermented  grape- 
iuice  of  the  first  year,  it  is  evidently  here  applied  to  the  juice  in  its  original 
state,  unless  we  understand   it   to  be  used  proleptically  for  the  pledge  or 
earnest  of  new  wine.     A  blessing  is  in  it,  seems  to  mean  something  more 
than  that  it  has  some  value.     The  idea  meant  to  be  suggested  is,  that  God 
has  blessed  it,  and  that  man  should  therefore  not  destroy  it.     The  meaning 
of  the  simile  in  this  clause  appears  obvious,  and  yet  it  has  been  strangely 
misconceived  both  by  the  oldest  and  the  latest  writers.     Knobel  understands 
it  to  mean  that  as  a  grape  or  a  cluster  of  grapes  is  preserved  for  the  sake  of 
the  juice,  notwithstanding  the  presence  of  the  stem,  skin,  and  stones,  which 
are  of  no  use,  so  the  good  Jews  shall  be  saved,  notwithstanding  the  bad 
ones  who  are  mingled  with  them.     But  this  explanation  would  imply  that 
men  are  sometimes  disposed  to  destroy  good  grapes  because  they  consist 
partly  of  unprofitable  substances,  and  need  to  be  reminded   that  the  juice 
within  is  valuable.    Much  nearer  to  the  truth,  and  yet  erroneous,  is  Jerome's 
explanation  of  the  clause  as  relating  to   a  single  good  grape  in  a  cluster, 


CHAPTER    LXV.  453 

\ 

which  diminishes  the  force  of  the  comparison  by  making  the  redeemino-  ele- 
ment too  insignificant.  The  image  really  presented  by  the  Prophet,  as 
Vitringa  clearly  shows,  and  most  later  writers  have  admitted,  is  that  of  a 
good  cluster  (bisajx),  in  which  juice  is  found,  while  others  are  unripe  or 
rotten. — I  will  do  is  by  some  understood  as  meaning  /  will  act,  or  I  will 
cause  it  to  be  so  ;  but  this  is  not  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew  verb,  which  rather 
means  precisely  what  the  English  I  will  do  denotes  in  such  connexions,  i.  e. 
1  will  do  so,  or  will  act  in  the  same  manner. — My  servants  is  by  some  under- 
stood to  mean  the  patriarchs,  the  fathers,  for  whose  sake  Israel  was  still 
beloved  (Rom.  11  :  28).  It  is  more  natural,  however,  to  apply  it  to  the 
remnant,  according  to  the  election  of  grace  (Rom.  11  :  5),  the  true 
believers  represented  by  the  ripe  and  juicy  cluster  in  the  foregoing  simile. — 
The  construction  of  the  last  words  is  the  same  as  in  ch.  48  :  9. — The  whole 
is  a  literal  translation  of  the  Hebrew  phrase,  and  at  once  more  exact  and 
more  expressive  than  the  conmion  version,  them  all. 

V.  9.  A)id  I  will  bring  forth  from  Jacob  a  seed  and  from  Judah  an 
heir  of  my  mountains,  and  my  chosen  ones  shall  inherit  it,  and  my  servants 
shall  dwell  there.  This  is  an  amplification  of  the  promise,  I  will  do  so,  in 
the  foregoing  verse.  Knobel's  interpretation  of  sf^T  as  meaning  a  generation, 
i.  6.  a  body  of  contemporaries,  is  at  variance  both  with  etymology  and  usage, 
with  the  parallel  expression  heir  or  inheritor,  and  with  the  figurative  import 
of  the  verb,  which  is  constantly  applied  to  the  generation  of  new  animal  and 
vegetable  products.  (See  ch.  1  :  4.)  That  there  is  reference  to  propaga- 
tion and  increase  is  also  rendered  probable  by  the  analogy  of  ch.  27  :  6  anjj 
37  :  31.  Objections  of  the  same  kind  may  be  urged  against  the  needless 
attenuation  of  the  proper  sense  of  ti^i"^,  so  as  to  exclude  the  idea  of  regular 
succession  and  hereditary  right.  My  mountains  is  supposed  by  Vitringa  to 
denote  Mount  Zion  and  Moriah,  or  Jerusalem  as  built  upon  them  ;  but  the 
later  writers  more  correctly  suppose  it  to  describe  the  whole  of  Palestine,  as 
being  an  uneven,  hilly  country.  See  the  same  use  of  the  plural  in  ch. 
14  :  25,  and  the  analogous  phrase,  mountains  of  Israel,  repeatedly  employed 
by  Ezekiel  (36  :  1,8.  38  :  8).  The  corresponding  singular,  ?»y  mountain 
(11:9.  57  :  13),  is  by  many  understood  in  the  same  manner.  Lowth 
restores  that  reading  here  on  the  authority  of  the  Septuagint  and  Peshito, 
but  understands  it  to  mean  Zion,  which  he  also  makes  the  antecedent  of  the 
suffix  in  the  phrase  inherit  it,  while  Maurer  refers  it  to  the  land  directly, 
and  some  of  the  older  writers  make  it  a  collective  neuter.  The  adverb  at 
the  end  of  the  sentence  properly  means  thither,  and  is  never  perhaps  put  for 
there  except  in  cases  where  a  change  of  place  is  previously  mentioned  or 
implied.  If  so,  the  sense  is  not  merely  that  they  shall  abide  there,  but  that 
they  shall  first  go  or  return  thither,  which  in  this  connexion   is   peculiarly 


454  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  V . 

ajipropriatc. — Of  the  promise  bore  recorded  there  are  three  principal  inter- 
pretations. The  first,  embraced  by  nearly  all  the  modern  Germans,  is  that 
the  verse  predicts  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon.  The  second 
may  be  stated  in  the  words  of  Henderson,  viz.  that  "  the  future  happy  occu- 
pation of  Palestine  by  a  regenerated  race  of  Jews  is  here  clearly  predicted." 
The  third  is  that  the  verse  foretells  the  perpetuation  of  the  old  theocracy  or 
Jewish  church  ;  not  in  the  body  of  the  nation,  but  in  the  remnant  which 
believed  on  Christ  ;  and  which,  enlarged  by  the  accession  of  the  gentiles,  is 
identical  in  character  and  rights  wiih  the  church  of  the  old  dispensation,  the 
heir  to  all  its  i)romise?,  and  this  among  the  rest,  which  either  has  been  or 
is  to  be  fulfilled  both  in  a  literal  and  figurative  sense  ;  in  the  latter,  because 
the  Church  already  has  what  is  essentially  equivalent  to  the  possession  of 
the  land  of  Canaan  under  a  local  ceremonial  system  ;  in  the  former,  because 
Palestine  is  yet  to  be  recovered  from  the  Paynim  and  the  Infidel,  and  right- 
fully occupied,  if  not  by  Jews,  by  Christians,  as  the  real  seed  of  Abraham, 
partakers  of  the  same  faith  and  heirs  of  the  same  promise  (Heb.  11  :  9),  for 
the  promise  that  he  should  be  the  heir  of  the  world  was  not  to  Abraham,  or 
to  his  seed  through  the  law,  but  through  the  righteousness  of  faith  (Rom. 
4  :  13).  If  it  should  please  God  to  collect  the  natural  descendants  of  the 
patriarch  in  that  land  and  convert  them  in  a  body  to  the  true  faith,  there 
would  be  an  additional  coincidence  between  the  prophecy  and  the  event, 
even  in  minor  circumstances,  such  as  we  often  find  in  the  history  of  Christ. 
But  if  no  such  national  restoration  of  the  Jews  to  Palestine  should  ever 
happen,  the  extension  of  the  true  religion  over  that  benighted  region,  which 
both  prophecy  and  providence  encourage  us  to  look  for,  would  abundantly 
redeem  the  pledge  which  God  has  given  to  his  people  in  this  and  other  parts 
of  Scripture. 

V.  10.  And  Sfiaron  shall  be  for  (or  become)  a  home  of  flocks,  and  the 
Valley  of  Achor  a  lair  of  herds,  for  my  people  who  have  sought  me.  This 
is  a  repetition  of  the  promise  in  the  foregoing  verse,  rendered  more  specific 
by  the  mention  of  one  kind  of  prosperity,  viz.  that  connected  with  the  rais- 
ing of  cattle,  and  of  certain  places  where  it  should  be  specially  enjoyed,  viz. 
the  valley  of  Achor  and  the  plain  of  Sharon.  Two  reasons  have  been  given 
for  the  mention  of  these  places,  one  derived  from  their  position,  the  other 
from  their  quality.  As  the  valley  of  Achor  was  near  Jericho  and  Jordan, 
and  the  plain  of  Sharon  on  the  Mediterranean,  between  Joppa  and  Cesarea, 
some  suppose  that  they  are  here  combined  to  signify  the  whole  breadth  of 
the  land,  from  East  to  West.  And  as  Sharon  was  proverbial  for  its  verdure 
and  fertility  (see  above,  ch.  33  :  9.  35  :  2),  it  is  inferred  by  some  that  Achor 
was  so  likewise,  which  they  think  is  the  more  probable  because  Hosea  says 
that  the  valley  of  Achor  shall  be  a  door  of  hope  (Hos.  2  :  17).     But  this 


CH  AP  TE  R    LX  V.  455 

may  have  respect  to  the  calamity  which  Israel  experienced  there  at  his  first 
entrance  on  the  land  of  promise  (Josh.  7  :  26),  so  that  where  his  troubles 
then  began  his  hopes  shall  now  begin.  For  these  or  other  reasons  Sharon 
and  Achor  are  here  mentioned,  in  Isaiah's  characteristic  manner,  as  samples 
of  the  whole  land,  or  its  pastures,  just  as  flocks  and  herds  are  used  as  images 
of  industry  and  wealth,  derived  from  the  habits  of  the  patriarchal  age.  That 
this  is  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  flocks  and  herds,  is  not  disputed 
even  by  the  very  writers  who  insist  upon  the  literal  construction  of  the 
promise  that  the  seed  of  Jacob  shall  possess  the  land,  as  guaranteeing  the 
collection  of  the  Jews  into  the  region  which  their  fathers  once  inhabited. 
By  what  subtle  process  the  absolute  necessity  of  literal  interpretation  is 
transformed  into  a  very  large  discretion  when  the  change  becomes  conve- 
nient, is  a  question  yet  to  be  determined. — That  to  seek  Jehovah  sometimes 
has  specific  reference  to  repentance  and  conversion,  on  the  part  of  those 
who  have  been  alienated  from  him,  may  be  seen  by  a  comparison  of  ch. 
9:  12  and  55  :  6. 

V.  11.  And  (^as  for)  you,  forsakcrs  of  Jehovah,  the  (men)  forgetting 
my  holy  mountain,  the  (men)  setting  for  Fortune  a  tabic,  and  the  (^men)  filling 
for  Fate  a  mingled  draught.  This  is  only  a  description  of  the  object  of 
address  ;  the  address  itself  is  contained  in  the  next  verse.  The  form  cnx"! 
indicates  a  contrast  with  what  goes  before,  as  in  ch.  3  :  14.  The  class  of 
persons  meant  is  first  described  as  forsakers  of  Jehovah  and  forgetters  of  his 
holy  mountain.  Rosenraiiller  understands  this  as  a  figurative  name  for  the 
despisers  of  his  worship  ;  but  Knobel,  as  a  literal  description  of  those  exiles 
who  had  lost  all  affection  for  Jerusalem,  and  had  no  wish  to  return  thither. 
The  description  of  the  same  persons  in  the  last  clause  is  much  more  obscure, 
and  has  occasioned  a  vast  amount  of  learned  disquisition  and  discussion. 
The  commentators  on  the  passage  who  have  gone  most  fully  into  the  details, 
are  Vitringa  and  Rosenmiiller:  but  the  clearest  summary  is  furnished  by 
Gesenius.  The  strangest  exposition  of  the  clause  is  that  of  Zeltner,  in  a 
dissertation  on  the  verse  (1715),  in  which  he  applies  it  to  the  modern  Jews 
as  a  j)rolific  and  an  avaricious  race.  Many  interpreters  have  understood  the 
two  most  important  words  ("iJ  and  "^^r)  as  common  nouns  denoting  troop 
and  number  (the  former  being  the  sense  put  upon  the  name  Gad,  in  Gen. 
30:  II),  and  referred  the  whole  clause  cither  to  convivial  assemblies, 
perhaps  connected  with  idolatrous  worship,  or  to  the  troop  of  planets  and 
the  multitude  of  stars,  as  objects  of  such  worship.  But  as  the  most  essential 
words  in  this  case  are  supplied,  the  later  writers,  while  they  still  suppose 
the  objects  worshipped  to  be  here  described,  explain  the  descriptive  terms 
in  a  difft'rent  manner.  Luther  retains  the  Hebrew  names  Gad  and  Meni, 
which  are  also  given  in  the  margin  of  the  English  Bible  ;  but  most  inter- 


456  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    LX  V. 

preters  explain  them  by  equivalents.  Gesenius  ingeniously  argues  from  the 
etymology  of  the  names  that  they  relate  to  human  destiny;  and  from  the 
mythology  of  the  ancient  eastern  nations,  that  they  relate  to  heavenly 
bodies.  He  dissents,  however,  from  Vitringa's  opinion  that  the  sun  and 
moon  are  meant,  as  well  as  from  the  notions  of  older  writers,  that  the 
names  are  descriptive  of  the  planetary  system,  the  signs  of  the  Zodiac, 
particular  constellations,  etc.  His  own  opinion  is  that  "'S  is  the  planet 
Jupiter  (identical  with  Bel  or  Baal),  and  "i^  the  planet  Venus  (identical 
with  Ashtoreth),  which  are  called  in  the  old  Arabian  mythology  the 
Greater  and  Lesser  Fortune  or  Good  Luck,  while  Saturn  and  Mars  were 
known  as  the  Greater  and  Lesser  Evil  Fortune  or  111  Luck.  J.  D. 
Micbaelis  had  long  before  explained  the  names  here  used  as  meaning  Fortune 
and  Fate,  or  Good  and  Evil  Destiny  ;  and  Ewald,  in  like  manner,  under- 
stands the  planets  here  intended  to  be  Jupiter  and  Saturn,  while  Knobel 
goes  back  to  the  old  hypothesis  of  Vitringa  and  the  others,  that  the  names 
denote  the  Sun  and  Moon,  the  latter  assumption  being  chiefly  founded  on 
the  supposed  affinity  between  '-"^  and  fii;vti.  Others  connect  it  with  the 
Arabic  SUjo,  an  idol  worshipped  at  Mecca  before  the  time  of  Mohammed. 
Some  supposed  the  moon  to  be  called  ■?^  (from  n;^  to  measure),  as  a 
measure  of  time.  x\midst  this  diversity  of  theories  and  explanations,  only 
a  very  minute  part  of  which  has  been  introduced  by  way  of  sample,  it  is 
satisfactory  to  6nd  that  there  is  perfect  unanimity  upon  the  only  point  of 
exegetical  importance,  namely,  that  the  passage  is  descriptive  of  idolatrous 
worship ;  for  even  those  w  ho  apply  it  directly  to  convivial  indulgences 
connect  the  latter  with  religious  institutions.  This  being  settled,  the  details 
still  doubtful  can  be  interesting  only  to  the  philologist  and  antiquarian.  The 
kind  of  offering  described  is  supposed  to  be  identical  with  ihe  lectisternia 
of  the  Roman  writers  ;  and  Gesenius  characteristically  says,  the  show- 
bread  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  was  nothing  else  (nichts  anders).  The 
heathen  rite  in  question  consisted  in  the  spreading  of  a  feast  for  the  con- 
sumption of  the  gods.  Herodotus  mentions  a  rQantL,a  i^Xiov  as  known  in 
Egypt ;  and  Jeremiah  twice  connects  this  usage  with  the  worship  of  the 
queen  of  heaven.  (Jer.  7  :  18.  44  :  17.)  T\^,'r'r  denotes  mixture,  and  may 
either  mean  spiced  wine,  or  a  compound  of  different  liquors,  or  a  mere 
preparation  or  infusion  of  one  kind.  (See  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  78.) — 
As  to  the  application  of  the  passage,  there  is  the  usual  division  of  opinion 
among  the  adherents  of  the  different  hypotheses.  Henderson's  reasoning 
upon  this  verse  is  remarkable.  Having  applied  vs.  3-5  to  the  ancient 
Jewish  idolatry,  he  might  have  been  expected  to  attach  the  same  sense  to 
the  words  before  us,  where  the  Prophet  seems  to  turn  again  to  those  of  whom 
he  had  been  speaking  when  he  began  to  promise  the  deliverance  of  the  elect 
remnant  (v.  8).     But  "  it  seems  more  natural  to  regard  them  as  the  impe- 


CH  AP  TER    LX  V.  457 

nitent  and  worldly  portion  of  the  Jews  who  shall  live  at  the  time  of  the 
restoration."  The  reason  given  for  this  sudden  change  can  only  satisfy  the 
minds  of  those  who  agree  with  the  author  in  his  foregone  conclusion,  namely, 
that  "the  persons  addressed  in  this  and  the  four  following  verses  are 
contrasted  with  those  who  are  to  return  and  enjoy  the  divine  favour  in 
Palestine."  But  even  after  the  application  of  the  terms  is  thus  decided, 
there  is  a  question  not  so  easily  disposed  of,  as  to  what  they  mean.  The 
principle  of  strict  interpretation  might  be  thought  to  require  the  conclusion 
doubtingly  hinted  at  by  J.  D.  iMirhaelis,  that  the  Jews  are  to  worship  Gad 
and  Meni  hereafter.  But,  according  to  Henderson,  "  there  is  no  reason  to 
imagine  that  the  Jews  will  again  become  actual  idolaters,"  as  if  the  strict 
interpretation  of  this  verse  would  not  itself  afford  a  reason  not  for  imagining 
but  for  believing  that  it  will  be  so.  But  rather  than  admit  this,  he  declares 
that  "  all  attempts  to  explain  Gad  and  Mcni  of  idols  literally  taken,  are 
aside  from  the  point."  From  what  point  they  are  thus  aside  does  not 
appear,  unless  it  be  the  point  of  making  half  the  prophecy  a  loose  metapho- 
rical description,  and  cutting  the  remainder  to  the  quick  by  a  rigorously 
literal  interpretation.  "Israel,"  "  Jerusalem,"  "  the  land,"  must  all  denote 
the  "Israel,"  "Jerusalem,"  and  "land"  of  ancient  times  and  of  the 
old  economy;  but  all  attempts  to  explain  Gad  and  Meni  of  idols  literally 
taken  are  aside  from  the  point.  And  thus  we  are  brought  to  the  curious 
result  of  one  literal  interpretation  excluding  another  as  impossible.  The 
true  sense  of  the  passage  seems  to  be  the  same  as  in  vs.  3—7,  where 
Henderson  himself  regards  the  Prophet  as  completing  his  description  of  the 
wickedness  of  Israel,  by  circumstances  drawn  from  different  periods  of  his 
history,  such  as  the  idolatrous  period,  the  pharisaical  period,  etc. 

V.  15.  And  I  have  numbered  you  to  the  sword,  and  all  of  you  to  the 
slaughter  shall  how ;  because  I  called  and  ye  did  not  answer,  1  spake  and 
ye  did  not  hear,  and  ye  did  the  (thing  that  was)  evil  in  my  eyes,  and  that 
which  I  desired  not  ye  chose.  The  preceding  verse  having  reference  only 
to  the  present  and  the  past,  the  Vav  at  the  beginning  of  this  can  have  no 
conversive  influence  upon  the  verb,  which  is  therefore  to  be  rendered  as  a 
preterite.  The  objections  to  making  it  the  sign  of  the  apodosis  have  been 
already  stated.  The  paraphrastic  version,  therefore,  is  entirely  gratuitous. 
Gesenius  gives  the  verb  in  this  one  place  the  diluted  sense  of  allotting  or 
appointing;  but  the  strict  sense  of  numbering  or  counting  is  not  only  admis- 
sible, but  necessary  to  express  a  portion  of  the  writer's  meaning,  namely, 
the  idea  that  they  should  be  cut  off  one  by  one,  or  rather  one  with  another, 
i.  e.  all  without  exception.  (See  ch.  27  :  12  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies, 
p.  467.)  Knobel,  indeed,  imagines  that  a  universal  slaughter  cannot  be 
intended,  because  he  goes  on  to  tell  what  shall  befall  the  survivors,  viz. 

• 


453  CH  APTE  R    LX  V. 

hunger,  thirst,  disgrace,  distress,  etc.  Ilitzig  had  taste  enough  to  see  that 
these  are  not  described  as  subsequent  in  time  to  the  evils  threatened  in  the 
verse  before  us,  but  specifications  of  the  way  in  which  that  threatening 
should  be  executed.  The  sense  above  given  to  ^^j''^'^  is  confirmed  and 
illustrated  hy  its  application  elsewhere  to  the  numbering  of  sheep.  (Jer, 
33  :  13.)  In  its  use  here  there  is  evident  allusion  to  its  derivative  "i:^  in 
the  preceding  verse,  which  some  of  the  German  writers  try  to  make  percep- 
tible to  German  readers  by  combining  cognate  nouns  and  verbs,  such  as 
Shicksal  and  schicke,  Verhangniss  and  verhdnge,  Bestimmung  and  beslimmc, 
etc.  The  same  effect,  if  it  were  worth  the  while,  might  be  produced  in 
English  by  the  use  o^  destiny  and  destine.  Vitringa,  in  order  to  identify  the 
figures  of  the  first  and  second  clauses,  makes  a'^n  rnean  a  butcher's  knife; 
but  an  opposite  assimilation  would  be  better,  namely,  that  of  making  nn:: 
mean  slaughter  in  general,  not  that  of  the  slaughter-house  exclusively.  Both 
sword  and  slaughter  are  familiar  figures  for  violent  destruction.  The  verb 
r'ng  is  also  applied  elsewhere  to  one  slain  by  violence  (Judg.  5  :  27.  2 
Kings  9  :  24).  Bowing  or  stooping  to  the  slaughter  is  submitting  to  it  either 
willingly  or  by  compulsion.  Gesenius  takes  n:-j  in  the  local  sense  o^Schlacht- 
bank,  to  suit  which  he  translates  the  verb  kneel,  and  the  particle  before. 
This  last  JXoyes  retains  without  the  others,  in  the  English  phrase  boiv  down 
before  the  slaughter,  which  is  either  unmeaning,  or  conveys  a  false  idea, 
that  of  priority  in  time.  The  remainder  of  the  verse  assigns  the  reason  of 
the  threatened  punishment.  The  first  expression  bears  a  strong  resemblance 
to  the  words  of  Wisdom,  in  Prov.  1  :  24-31.  Knobel's  explanation  of  the 
'  thing  that  was  evil  in  my  eyes  '  as  a  description  of  idolatry,  is  as  much  too 
restricted  as  Vitringa's  explanation  of'  that  which  I  desired  not  or  delighted 
not  in'  as  signifying  ritual  or  formal  as  opposed  to  spiritual  worship.  Of  the 
two  the  former  has  the  least  foundation,  as  the  only  proof  cited  is  ch.  38  :  3, 
whereas  Vitringa's  explanation  of  the  other  phrase  derives  no  little  counte- 
nance from  Ps.  40  :  7.  51  :  18.  Hos.  6  :  6.  The  only  objection  to  either 
is  that  it  mistakes  a  portion  of  the  true  sense  for  the  whole. — As  to  the 
application  of  the  words,  there  is  the  usual  confidence  and  contradiction. 
Knobel  regards  them  as  a  threatening  of  captivity  and  execution  to  the 
Jews  who  took  sides  with  the  Babylonians  against  Cyrus.  Henderson  applies 
them  to  the  inevitable  and  condign  punishment  of  those  Jews  who  shall 
prefer  the  pleasures  of  sin  to  those  of  true  religion  embraced  by  the  great 
body  of  the  nation,  which  punishment,  he  adds,  "  will,  in  all  jJfobability, 
be  inflicted  upon  them  in  common  with  the  members  of  the  antichristian 
confederacy,  after  their  believing  brethren  shall  have  been  securely  settled 
in  Palestine."  The  grounds  of  this  all-probable  anticipation  are  not  given. 
Vitringa  understands  the  passage  as  predicting  the  excision  of  the  Jewish 
nation  from  the  church,  not  only  for  the  crowning  sin  of  rejecting  Christ, 


C  H  A  P  T  ER    LX  V.  459 

but  for  their  ago;regate  offences  as  idolaters  and  hypocrites,  as  rebels  against 
God  and  despisers  of  his  mercy,  with  which  sins  they  are  often  charged  in 
the  Old  Testament  (e.  g.  ch.  50  :  2.  65  :  2.  66  :  4.  Jer.  7:13,  -25),  and 
still  more  pointedly  by  Christ  himself  in  several  of  his  parables  and  other 
discourses,  some  of  which  remarkably  resemble  that  before  us  both  in  senti- 
ment and  language.  (See  Matt.  23  :  37.  22  :  7.  Luke  19  :  27,  and 
compare  Acts  13  :  46.)  Besides  the  countenance  which  this  analogy 
affords  to  Vitringa's  exposition,  it  is  strongly  recommended  by  its  strict 
agreement  with  what  we  have  determined,  independently  of  this  place,  to 
be  the  true  sense  of  the  wliole  foregoing  context.  Interpreted  by  these 
harmonious  analogies,  the  verse,  instead  of  threatening  the  destruction  of 
the  Babylonish  Jews  before  the  advent,  or  of  the  wicked  Jews  and  Anti- 
christ hereafter,  is  a  distinct  prediction  of  a  far  more  ciitical  event  than 
either,  the  judicial  separation  of  the  Jewish  nation  and  the  Israel  of  God, 
which  had  for  ages  seemed  inseparable,  not  to  say  identical. 

Vs.  13,  14.  Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah,  Lo !  my  servants 
shall  eat  and  ye  shall  hunger ;  lo,  my  servants  shall  drink  and  yc  shall 
thirst ;  lo,  my  servants  shall  rejoice  and  ye  shall  be  ashamed ;  lo,  my  ser- 
vants shall  shout  from  gladness  of  heart,  and  ye  shall  cry  from  grief  of 
heart,  and  from-  brokenness  of  spirit  ye  shall  howl.  These  verses  merely 
carry  out  the  general  threatening  of  the  one  preceding,  in  a  series  of  poetical 
antitheses,  where  hunger,  thirst,  disgrace,  and  anguish,  take  the  place  of 
sword  and  slaughter,  and  determine  these  to  be  symbolical  or  emblematic 
terms.  Knobel's  Inteipretation  of  these  verses  as  predicting  bodily  priva- 
tions and  hard  hondage  to  those  who  should  escape  the  sword  of  Cyrus,  is 
entitled  to  as  little  deference  as  he  would  pay  to  the  suggestion  of  Vitrlnga, 
that  the  eating  and  drinking  have  specific  reference  to  the  joy  with  which 
the  first  Christian  converts  partook  of  the  Lord's  supper  (Acts  2  :  46.  9:31). 
This  is  no  doubt  chargeable  with  undue  refinement  and  particularity,  but 
notwithstanding  this  excess,  the  exposition  is  correct  in  princlj)le,  as  we  may 
learn  from  the  frequent  use  of  these  antagonist  metaphors  to  signify  spiritual 
joy  and  horror,  not  only  in  the  Prophets  (see  above,  ch.  8:21.  33  :  IG. 
55  :  1.  58  :  14),  but  by  our  Saviour  when  he  speaks  of  his  disciples  as 
eating  bread  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (Luke  14  :  13),  where  many  shall 
come  from  the  east  and  the  west,  and  sit  down  (or  recline  at  table)  with 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  (Matt.  8:11);  and  ascribes  to  the  king  in  the 
parable  the  solemn  declaration,  I  say  unto  you  none  of  tliose  men  that  were 
bidden  shall  taste  of  my  supper  (Luke  14  :  24).  Thus  understood,  the 
passage  Is  a  solenm  prediction  of  happiness  to  the  believing  and  of  misery 
to  the  unbelieving  Jews.  The  latter  are  directly  addressed,  the  former 
designated  as  my  servants. — Gladness  of  heart,  literally  goodness  of  heart, 


460  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    LX  V. 

which  in  our  idiom  would  express  a  diflerent  idea,  on  account  of  our  pre- 
dominant use  of  the  first  word  in  a  moral  sense.  For  the  Hebrew  expression 
see  Deut.  28  :  47.  Judg.  19:6,  22.  For  brokcnness  of  spirit,  compare 
ch.  61:1  and  Ps.  51  :  17. — To  be  ashamed,  as  often  elsewhere,  includes 
disappointment  and  frustration  of  hope. 

V.  15.  And  ye  shall  leave  your  name  for  an  oath  to  my  chosen  ojies, 
and  the  Lord  Jehovah  shall  slay  thee,  and  shall  call  his  servants  by  another 
name  (literally,  call  another  name  to  them).  The  object  of  address  is  still 
the  body  of  the  Jewish  nation,  from'  which  the  believing  remnant  are  distin- 
guished by  the  names  my  chosen  and  my  servants.  Oath  is  here  put  for 
curse,  as  it  is  added  to  it  in  Dan.  9:11,  and  the  two  are  combined  in  Num. 
5  :  21,  where  the  oath  of  cursing  may  be  regarded  as  the  complete  expres- 
sion of  which  oath  is  here  an  ellipsis.  To  leave  one's  name  for  a  curse, 
according  to  Old  Testament  usage,  is  something  more  than  to  leave  it  to  be 
cursed.  The  sense  is  that  the  name  shall  be  used  as  a  formula  of  cursing, 
so  that  men  shall  be  able  to  wish  nothing  worse  to  others  than  a  like  cha- 
racter and  fate.  This  is  clear  from  Jer.  29  :  22  compared  with  Zech.  3  :  2, 
as  well  as  from  the  converse  or  correlative  promise  to  the  patriarchs  and 
their  children  that  a  like  use  should  be  made  of  their  names  as  a  formula  of 
blessing  (Gen.  22  :  18.  48  :  20).  As  in  other  cases  where  the  use  of 
names  is  the  subject  of  discourse,  there  is  no  need  of  supposing  that  any 
actual  practice  is  predicted,  but  merely  that  the  character  and  fate  of  those 
addressed  will  be  so  bad  as  justly  to  admit  of  such  an  application. — Ewald 
ingeniously  explains  the  words  riinn  "jnx  ^n^rn^  as  the  very  form  of  cursing 
to  be  used,  so  may  the  Lord  Jehovah  slay  thee!  This  construction,  though 
adopted  by  Umbreit  and  Knobel,  is  far  from  being  obvious  or  natural.  The 
preterite,  though  sometimes  construed  with  the  optative  particles,  would 
hardly  be  employed  in  that  sense  absolutely,  especially  in  the  middle  of  a 
sentence,  preceded  and  followed  by  predictive  clauses,  each  beginning  with 
1 ,  which  on  Ewald's  supposition  must  be  either  overlooked  as  pleonastic  or 
violently  made  to  bear  the  sense  of  50.  Even  if  this  were  one  of  the  mean- 
ings of  the  particle,  a  more  explicit  form  would  no  doubt  have  been  used  in 
a  case  where  the  comparison  is  every  thing.  The  wish  required  by  the  con- 
text is  that  God  would  kill  them  so,  or  in  like  manner;  a  bare  wish  that  he 
would  kill  them,  would  be  nothing  to  the  purpose.  The  violence  of  this 
construction  might  be  counteracted  as  an  argument  against  it  by  exegetical 
necessity,  but  no  such  necessity  exists.  The  use  of  the  singular  pronoun 
thee,  so  far  from  requiring  it,  is  in  perfect  keeping  with  the  rest  of  the  sen- 
tence. As  the  phrase  your  nume  shows  that  the  object  of  address  is  a  plu- 
rality of  persons  bearing  one  name,  or  in  other  words  an  organized  commu- 
nity, so  the  singular  form  slay  thee  is  entirely  appropriate  to  this  collective 


CH  AFTER    LXV.  461 

or  ideal  person. — Of  the  last  clause  there  are  three  interpretations.  The 
rabbinical  expounders  understand  it  as  the  converse  of  the  other  clause.  As 
your  name  is  to  be  a  name  of  cursing,  so  my  servants  are  to  have  another 
name,  i.  e.  a  name  of  blessing,  or  a  name  by  which  men  shall  bless.  Others 
give  it  a  more  general  sense,  as  meaning  their  condition  shall  be  altogether 
different.  A  third  opinion  is  that  it  relates  to  the  substitution  of  the  Chris- 
tian name  for  that  of  Jew,  as  a  distinctive  designation  of  God's  people. 
The  full  sense  of  the  clause  can  only  be  obtained  by  combining  all  these 
explanations,  or  at  least  a  part  of  each.  The  first  is  obviously  implied,  if 
not  expressed.  The  second  is  established  by  analogy  and  usage,  and  the 
almost  unanimous  consent  of  all  interpreters.  The  only  question  is  in  refer- 
ence to  the  last,  which  is  of  course  rejected  with  contempt  by  the  neologists, 
and  regarded  as  fanciful  by  some  Christian  writers.  These  have  been  influ- 
enced in  part  by  the  erroneous  assumption  that  if  this  is  not  the  whole  sense 
of  the  words,  it  cannot  be  a  part  of  it.  But  this  is  only  true  in  cases  where 
the  two  proposed  are  incompatible.  The  true  state  of  the  case  is  this  : 
According  to  the  usage  of  the  prophecies  the  promise  of  another  name 
imports  a  different  character  and  state,  and  in  this  sense  the  promise  has 
been  fully  verified.  But  in  addition  to  this  general  fulfilment,  which  no  one 
calls  in  question,  it  is  matter  of  history  that  the  Jewish  commonwealth  or 
nation  is  destroyed  ;  that  the  name  of  Jew  has  been  for  centuries  a  bye-word 
and  a  formula  of  execration,  and  that  they  who  have  succeeded  to  the  spi- 
ritual honours  of  this  once  favoured  race,  although  they  claim  historical  iden- 
tity therewith,  have  never  borne  its  name,  but  another,  which  from  its  very 
nature  could  have  no  existence  until  Christ  had  come,  and  which  in  the 
common  parlance  of  the  Christian  world  is  treated  as  the  opposite  of  Jew. 
Now  all  this  .must  be  set  aside  as  mere  fortuitous  coincidence,  or  it  must  be 
accounted  for  precisely  in  the  same  way  that  we  all  account  for  similar  coin- 
cidences between  the  history  of  Christ  and  the  Old  Testament  in  minor 
points,  where  all  admit  that  the  direct  sense  of  the  prophecy  is  more  exten- 
sive. As  examples,  may  be  mentioned  John  the  Baptist's  preaching  in  a 
literal  wilderness,  our  Saviour's  riding  on  a  literal  ass,  his  literally  opening 
the  eyes  of  the  blind,  when  it  is  evident  to  every  reader  of  the  original  pas- 
sage that  it  predicts  events  of  a  far  more  extensive  and  more  elevated  nature. 
While  I  fully  believe  that  this  verse  assures  God's  servants  of  a  very  different 
fate  from  that  of  the  unbelieving  Jews,  I  have  no  doubt  that  it  also  has 
respect  to  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  state  and  the  repudiation  of  its 
name  by  the  true  church  or  Israel  of  God. 

V.  16.  (By)  which  the  (inaii)  blessing  himself  in  the  land  (or  earth) 
shall  bless  himself  by  the  God  of  truth,  and  (by  which)  the  (man)  swearing 
in  the  land  (or  earth)  shall  swear  by  the  God  of  truth,  because  forgotten 


462  CHAPTERLXV. 

are  the  former  enmities  (or  troubles),  and  because  they  are  hidden  from  my 
eyes.  Two  things  have  divided  and  perplexed  interpreters  in  this  verse,  as 
it  stands  connected  with  the  one  before  it.  The  first  is  the  apparent  change 
of  subject,  and  the  writer's  omission  to  record  the  new  name  which  had  just 
been  promised.  The  other  is  the  very  unusual  construction  of  the  relative 
"it'^  •  The  first  of  these  has  commonly  been  left  without  solution,  or  refer- 
red to  the  habitual  freedom  of  the  writer.  The  other  has  been  variously 
but  very  unsuccessfully  explained.  Kiiochi  takes  it  in  the  sense  of  when, 
Luther  in  that  of  so  that.  Vitringa  connects  it  with  the  participle,  as  if  it 
were  a  future.  Rosenmiillcr  and  Gesenius  regard  it  as  redundant,  whicli  is 
a  mere  evasion  of  the  difficulty,  as  the  cases  which  they  cite  of  such  a 
usage  are  entirely  irrelevant,  as  shown  by  Maurer,  whose  own  hypothesis  is 
not  more  satisfactory,  viz.  that  either  the  article  or  relative  was  carelessly 
inserted  (negligentius  dictum).  Ewald  gives  the  relative  its  strict  sense, 
and  makes  Jehovah  the  antecedent,  by  supplying  before  it,  thus  saith  Jeho- 
vah (or  saith  he)  by  whom  the  man  that  blesses  etc.  This  has  the  advan- 
tage of  adhering  to  the  strict  sense  of  the  pronoun,  but  the  disadvantage  of 
involving  an  improbable  ellipsis,  and  of  making  the  writer  say  circuitously 
what  he  might  have  said  directly.  Thus  saith  he  by  whom  the  person 
blessing  blesses  by  the  God  of  truth,  is  perfectly  equivalent  to  Thus  saith 
the  God  of  truth.  Both  these  objections  may  be  obviated  by  referring  "iiiix 
to  an  expressed  antecedent,  viz.  name,  a  construction  given  both  in  the 
Septuaginl  and  Vulgate  versions,  although  otherwise  defective  and  obscure. 
Another  advantage  of  this  construction  is  that  it  removes  the  abrupt  transi- 
tion and  supplies  the  name,  which  seems  on  any  other  supposition  to  be 
wanting.  According  to  this  view  of  the  place,  the  sense  is  that  the  people 
shall  be  called  after  the  God  of  truth,  so  that  his  name  and  theirs  shall  be 
identical,  and  consequently  whoever  blesses  or  swears  by  the  one  blesses  or 
swears  by  the  other  also.  The  form  in  which  this  idea  is  expressed  is  pecu- 
liar, but  intelligible  and  expressive  :  '  His  people  he  shall  call  by  another 
name,  which  (i.  e.  with  respect  to  which,  or  more  specifically  by  which)  he 
that  blesseth  shall  bless  by  the  God  of  truth,'  etc.  Ewald  supposes  blessing 
and  cursing  to  be  meant,  as  oath  is  used  above  to  signify  a  curse  ;  but  most 
interpreters  understand  by  blessing  himself,  praying  for  God's  blessing,  and 
by  swearing,  the  solemn  invocation  of  his  presence  as  a  witness,  both  being 
mentioned  as  acts  of  religious  worship  and  of  solemn  recognition. — '^J*  is 
probably  an  adjective  meaning  sure,  trustworthy,  and  therefore  including 
the  ideas  of  reality  and  faithfulness,  neither  of  which  should  be  excluded,  and 
both  of  which  are  comprehended  in  the  English  phrase,  the  true  God,  or 
retaining  more  exactly  the  form  of  the  original,  the  God  of  truth.  Hender- 
son's versioQ,  "  faithful  God,"  expresses  onjy  half  of  the  idea.  This  Hebrew 
word  is  retained  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  not  only  as  a  particle 


CH  AP  TER    LX  V.  463 

of  asseveration,  but  In  a  still  more  remarkable  manner  as  a  name  of  Christ 
(Rev.  1  :  18.  3  :  14),  with  obvious  reference  to  the  case  before  us  ;  and 
there  must  be  something  more  than  blind  chance  in  the  singular  coincidence 
thus  brought  to  light  between  this  application  of  the  phrase  and  the  sense 
which  has  been  put  upon  the  foregoing  verse,  as  relating  to  the  adoption  of 
the  Christian  name  by  the  church  or  chosen  people.  As  applied  to  Christ, 
the  name  is  well  explained  by  Vitringa  to  describe  him  as  very  God,  as  a 
witness  to  the  truth,  as  the  substance  or  reality  of  the  legal  shadows,  and  as 
the  fulfiller  of  the  divine  promises.  Ewald  agrees  with  the  older  writers  in 
rendering  71N3  in  the  earth,  but  most  interpreters  prefer  the  more  restricted 
version,  {71  the  land.  The  difference  is  less  than  might  at  first  sight  be  sup- 
posed, as  '  in  the  land  '  could  here  mean  nothing  less  tlian  in  the  land  of  pro- 
mise, the  domain  of  Israel,  the  church  in  its  widest  and  most  glorious  diffu- 
sion.— The  last  clause  gives  the  reason  for  the  application  of  ihe  title,  God 
of  truth,  viz.  because  in  his  deliverance  of  his  people  he  will  prove  himself 
to  be  the  true  God  in  both  senses,  truly  divine  and  eminently  faithful.  This 
proof  will  be  afforded  by  the  termination  of  those  evils  which  the  sins  of  his 
own  people  once  rendered  necessary.  Usage  is  certainly  in  favour  of  the 
common  version,  troubles  or  distresses  ;  but  there  is  something  striking  in 
Lowth's  version,  provocations,  which  agrees  well  with  what  seems  to  be  the 
•  sense  of  trns  in  ch.  63  :  9.  As  commonly  translated,  it  is  understood  by 
Gesenius  as  meaning  that  God  will  forget  the  former  necessity  for  punishing 
his  people,  which  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  he  will  forget  their  sins.  But 
Maurer  understands  the  sense  to  be  that  he  will  think  no  more  of  smiting 
them  again.  Both  seem  to  make  the  last  words  a  poetical  description  of 
oblivion  ;  but  Knobel  refers  what  is  said  of  forgetting  to  the  people,  and 
only  the  remaining  words  to  God. 

V.  17.  For  lo  I  (am)  creating  (or  about  to  create)  neiv  heavens  and  a 
new  earth,  and  the  former  (^things)  shall  not  be  remembered,  and  shall  not 
come  up  into  the  mind  (literally,  on  the  heart).  Some  interpreters  refer 
former  to  heavens  and  earth,  which  makes  the  parallelism  more  exact ;  but 
most  interpreters  refer  it  to  ni-isn  in  v.  16,  where  the  same  adjective  is 
used,  or  construe  it  indefinitely  in  the  sense  of /orwer  things.  Of  the  whole 
verse  there  are  several  distinct  interpretations.  Aben  Ezra  understands  it 
as  predicting  an  improvement  in  the  air  and  soil,  conducive  to  longevity 
and  uninterrupted  health  ;  and  a  similar  opinion  is  expressed  by  J.  D. 
Michaelis,  who  illustrates  the  verse  by  the  supposition  of  a  modern  writer 
who  should  describe  the  vast  improvement  in  Germany  since  ancient  times, 
by  saying  that  the  heaven  and  the  earth  are  new.  A  second  explanation  of 
the  verse  is  that  of  Thomas  Burnet  and  his  followers,  which  makes  it  a 


464  CH  AP  TE  R    LX  V. 

prediction  of  the  renovation  of  the  present  earth  with  its  skies  etc.  after  the 
destruction  of  the  present  at  the  day  of  judgment.  A  third  is  that  of 
Vitringa,  who  regards  it  as  a  figurative  prophecy  of  clianges  in  the  church, 
according  to  a  certain  systematic  explication  of  the  several  parts  of  the 
material  universe  as  symbols.  Belter  than  all  these,  because  requiring  less 
to  be  assumed,  and  more  in  keeping  with  the  usage  of  prophetic  language, 
is  the  explanation  of  the  verse  as  a  promise  or  prediction  of  entire  change 
in  the  existing  state  of  things,  the  precise  nature  of  the  change  and  of  the 
means  by  whicli  it  shall  be  brought  about  forming  no  part  of  the  revelation 
here.  That  the  words  are  not  inapplicable  to  a  revolution  of  a  moral  and 
spiritual  nature,  we  may  learn  from  Paul's  analogous  description  of  the 
change  wrought  in  conversion  (2  Cor.  5  :  17.  Gal.  6  :  15),  and  from 
Peter's  application  of  this  very  passage.  Nevertheless,  we,  according  to  his 
promise,  look  for  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth  wherein  dwelleth  righteous- 
ness (2  Peter  3  :  13).  That  the  words  have  such  a  meaning  even  here,  is 
rendered  probable  by  the  last  clause,  the  oblivion  of  the  former  state  of 
things  being  much  more  naturally  connected  with  moral  and  spiritual 
changes  than  with  one  of  a  material  nature. 

V.  18.  But  rejoice  and  be  glad  unto  eternity  (in)  that  ivhich  I  (am) 
creating,  for  lo  I  (am)  creating  Jerusalem  a  joy,  and  her  people  a  rejoicing, 
i.  e.  a  subject  or  occasion  of  it.  There  is  no  need  of  explaining  the  impera- 
tives as  futures,  though  futurity  is  of  course  implied  in  the  command.  It 
would  be  highly  arbitrary  to  explain  ivhat  I  create  in  this  place  as  different 
from  the  creation  in  the  verse  preceding.  It  is  there  said  that  a  creation 
shall  take  place.  It  is  here  enjoined  upon  God's  people  to  rejoice  in  it. 
But  here  the  creation  is  declared  to  be  the  making  of  Jerusalem  a  joy  and 
Israel  a  rejoicing.  Now  the  whole  analogy  of  the  foregoing  prophecies  leads 
to  the  conclusion  that  this  means  the  exaltation  of  the  church  or  chosen 
people  ;  and  the  same  analogy  admits  of  that  exaltation  being  represented 
as  a  revolution  in  the  frame  of  nature.  On  the  other  hand,  a  literal  predic- 
tion of  new  heavens  and  new  earth  would  scarcely  have  been  followed  by 
a  reference  merely  to  the  church  ;  and  if  Jerusalem  and  Zion  be  explained 
to  mean  the  literal  Jerusalem  and  the  restored  Jews,  the  only  alternative  is 
then  to  conclude  that  as  soon  as  they  return  to  Palestine,  it  and  the  whole 
earth  are  to  be  renewed,  or  else  that  what  relates  to  Jerusalem  and  Israel 
is  literal,  and  what  relates  to  the  heavens  and  the  earth  metaphorical, 
although,  as  we  have  just  seen,  the  connexion  of  the  verses  renders  it  neces- 
sary to  regard  the  two  events  as  one.  From  all  these  incongruities  we  are 
relieved  by  understanding  the  whole  passage  as  a  poetical  description  of 
a  complete  and  glorious  change. 


CHAPTERLXV.  465 

V.  19.  And  I  ivill  rejoice  in  Jerusalem,  and  joy  in  my  people  ;  and 
there  shall  not  be  heard  in  her  again  the  voice  of  loceping  and  the  voice  of 
crying.  Considered  as  the  language  of  the  Prophet  himself,  this  would 
express  his  sympathetic  interest  in  the  joyous  changes  which  awaited  his 
people.  But  such  an  application  would  be  wholly  arbitrary,  as  Jehovah  is 
undoubtedly  the  speaker  in  the  foregoing  verse,  where  he  claims  creative 
power;  and  even  here  there  is  an  implication  of  divine  authority  in  the 
promise  that  weeping  shall  no  more  be  heard  in  her.  There  is  something 
very  beautiful  in  the  association  of  ideas  here  expressed.  God  shall  rejoice 
in  his  people,  and  they  shall  rejoice  with  him.  They  shall  no  longer  know 
what  grief  is,  because  he  shall  cease  to  grieve  over  them  ;  their  former 
distresses  shall  be  forgotten  by  them  and  for  ever  hidden  from  his  eyes. 

■V,  20.    There  shall  be  no  more  from  there  an  infant  of  days,  and  an 
old  man  who  shall  not  fulfil  his  days ;  for  the  child  a  hundred  years  old 
shall  die,  and  the  sinner  a  hundred  years  old  shall  be  accursed. — Some 
refer  c^'^  to  time,  and  understand  it  to  mean  thenceforth,  a  departure  from 
the  settled  usage  which  can  be  justified  only  by  necessity.     Others  reo-ard 
the    preposition   as   unmeaning,   and  read   there,  which    is  as   arbitrary  as 
Lowth's  reading  ti^ ,  neither  of  which  proceedings  can  be  justified  by  the 
example  of  the  ancient  versions.     The  strict  translation  thejice  (from  there) 
is  not  only  admissible  but  necessary  to  the  sense.     It  does  not,  however, 
mean  springing  or  proceeding  thence,  but  taken  away  thence,  or  as  Kimchi 
has  it,  carried  thence  to  burial.      It  is  thus  equivalent  to  r\'!\^i  in  the  next 
clause,  and  denotes  that  none  shall  die  there  in  infancy.     In  consequence 
of  not  correctly  apprehending  this,  Hitzig   alleges  that  this  first  clause  by 
itself  can  only  mean  that  there  shall  be  no  longer  any  infants,  to  avoid 
which  paralogism   he  connects  n''"2"i  bi2>  as  well  as  "pT  with  the  following 
words  :  neither  infant  nor  old  man  who  shall  not  fulfil  their  days.   But  there 
is  no  need  of  this  tautological  construction  if  c^-q   n-^p'i  implies  death,  and 
ta-ia;;  a  few  days  only,  which  last  is  more  agreeable  to  usage  than  the  specific 
sense  of  year,  which  some  assume.    A  curious  turn  is  given  to  the  sentence 
by  some  of  the  older  writers,  who  take  fulfil  his  days  in  the  moral  sense  of 
spending  them  well,  with  special  reference  to  improvement  in  knowledo-e, 
and  the  child  as  meaning  one  who  even  at  a  very  advanced  ao-e  continues 
still  a  child  in  understanding,  and  shall  therefore  die.     Still  more  unnatural 
is  the  modification  of  this  exposition  by  Cocceius,  who  explains  the  whole 
to  mean  that  men  shall  have  as  abundant  opportunities  of  instruction  in  the 
truth  as  if  they  enjoyed  a  patriarchal  longevity,  so  that  he  who  perishes  for 
lack  of  knowledge  will  be  left  without  excuse.     Vitringa  justly  repudiates 
these  far-fetched  explanations,  but  agrees  with  them  in  understanding  shall 

30 


466  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  V . 

die  as  an  emphatic  threatening,  and  in  departing  from  the  ordinary  sense 
of  "I??  ,  which  he  takes  to  be  here  an  equivalent  to  sinner.  All  the  modern 
writers  are  agreed  as  to  the  literal  meaning  of  this  last  clause,  though  they 
differ  as  to  the  relation  of  its  parts.  Some  regard  it  as  a  synonymous  paral- 
lelism, and  understand  the  sense  to  be  that  he  who  dies  a  hundred  years 
old  will  be  considered  as  dying  young,  and  by  a  special  curse  from  God, 
interrupting  the  ordinary  course  of  nature.  Others  follow  De  Dieu  in  making 
the  parallelism  antithetic,  and  contrasting  the  child  with  the  sinner.  Perhaps 
the  true  view  of  the  passage  is,  that  it  resumes  the  contrast  drawn  in  vs. 
13—15  between  the  servants  of  Jehovah  and  the  sinners  there  addressed. 
Vs.  16-19  may  then  be  regarded  as  a  parenthetical  amplification.  As  if  he 
had  said,  My  servants  shall  eat,  but  ye  shall  be  hungry  ;  my  servants  shall 
drink,  but  ye  shall  be  thirsty  ;  my  servants  shall  rejoice,  but  ye  shall  mourn  ; 
my  servants  shall  be  just  beginning  life  when  ye  are  driven  out  of  it ;  among 
the  former,  he  who  dies  a  hundred  years  old  shall  die  a  child ;  among  you, 
he  who  dies  at  the  same  age  shall  die  accursed.  On  the  whole,  however, 
the  most  natural  meaning  is  the  one  already  mentioned  as  preferred  by  most 
modern  writers.  Premature  death,  and  even  death  in  a  moderate  old  age, 
shall  be  unknown  ;  he  who  dies  a  hundred  years  old  shall  be  considered 
either  as  dying  in  childhood,  or  as  cut  off  by  a  special  malediction.  The 
whole  is  a  highly  poetical  description  of  longevity,  to  be  explained  precisely 
like  the  promise  of  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth  in  v.  17.  Beck's  gross 
expressions  of  contempt  for  the  absurdity  of  this  verse  are  founded  on  a 
wilful  perversion  or  an  ignorant  misapprehension.  Ewald  is  equally  unjust 
but  less  indecent  in  his  representation  of  this  verse  as  a  fanatical  anticipa- 
tion of  the  literal  change  which  it  describes. 

Vs.  21,  22.  And  they  shall  build  houses  and  inhabit  (them),  and  shall 
plant  vineyards  and  eat  the  fruit  of  them,  they  shall  not  build  and  another 
inhabit,  they  shall  not  plant  and  another  eat ;  for  as  the  days  of  a  tree  (shall 
be)  the  days  of  my  people,  and  the  work  of  their  hands  my  chosen  ones  shall 
wear  out  (or  survive).    This  is  a  promise  of  security  and  permanent  enjoy- 
ment, clothed  in  expressions  drawn  from  the  promises  and  threatenings  of 
the  Mosaic  law.    By  the  age  of  a  tree  is  generally  understood  the  great  age 
which  some  species  are  said  to  attain,  such  as  the  oak,  the  banyan,  etc. 
But  Knobel  takes  it  in  the  general  sense  of  propagation  and  succession,  and 
understands  the  promise  to  be  that,  as  trees  succeed  each  other  naturally 
and  for  ever,  so  shall  the  chosen  of  Jehovah  do.     The  essential  idea  is  in 
either  case  that  of  permanent  continuance,  and  the  figures   here  used  to 
express  it  make  it  still  more  probable  that  in   the  whole  foregoing  context 
the  predictions  are  to  be  figuratively  understood. 


CHAPTERLXV.  467 

V.  23.  They  shall  not  labour  in  vain,  and  they  shall  not  bring  forth  for 
terror ;  for  the  seed  of  the  blessed  of  Jehovah  are  they,  and  their  offspring 
with  them.  The  sense  o^  sudden  destruction  given  to  f^^f^a  by  some  modern 
writers,  is  a  mere  conjecture  from  the  context,  and  no  more  correct  than  the 
translation  curse,  which  others  derive  from  the  Arabic  analogy,  and  which 
Henderson  regards  as  the  primitive  meaning.  The  Hebrew  word  properly 
denotes  extreme  agitation  and  alarm,  and  the  meaning  of  the  clause  is  that 
they  shall  not  bring  forth  children  merely  to  be  subjects  of  distressing  soli- 
citude. Knobel,  as  in  ch.  1  :  4,  takes  v^^  in  the  sense  of  a  generation  or 
contemporary  race  ;  but  it  adds  greatly  to  the  strength  of  the  expression  if 
we  give  its  more  usual  sense  of  progeny  or  offspring  :  they  are  themselves 
the  offspring  of  those  blessed  of  God,  and  their  own  offspring  likewise,  as 
the  older  writers  understand  tnx  ,  while  the  moderns  suppose  it  to  mean 
shall  be  with  them,  i.  e.  shall  continue  with  them,  as  opposed  to  the  alarm 
referred  to  in  the  other  clause.  Umbreil's  idea  that  the  picture  of  domestic 
happiness  is  here  completed  by  the  unexpected  stroke  of  parents  and  chil- 
dren still  continuing  to  live  together,  is  ingenious  and  refined,  perhaps  too 
much  so  to  be  altogether  natural  in  this  connexion. 

V.  24.  And  it  shall  be  (or  come  to  pass),  that  they  shall  not  yet  have 
called  and  I  will  answer,  yet  (shall)  they  (be)  speakiiig  and  I  will  hear. 
A  strong  expression  of  God's  readiness  to  hear  and  answer  prayer,  not  a 
mere  promise  that  it  shall  be  heard  (like  that  in  Jer,  29  :  12.  Zecb.  13  :  9), 
but  an  assurance  that  it  shall  be  granted  before  it  is  heard.  The  nearest 
parallel  is  Matth.  6  :  8,  where  our  Lord  himself  says.  Your  Father  knoweth 
what  things  ye  have  need  of,  before  ye  ask  him.  (Compare  ch.  30:  19. 
58  :  9.  Ps.  145  :  18,  19.) — taVt:  is  commonly  explained  here  as  a  conjunc- 
tion, before  they  call,  and  Gesenius  gives  this  as  the  primary  meaning  of  the 
Hebrew  particle.  But  according  to  Hitzig  and  Maurer,  this  is  always 
expressed  by  the  compound  form  Q'lZia ,  and  the  simple  form  invariably 
means  not  yet.  This  construction,  which  might  otherwise  seem  very  harsh, 
is  favoured  by  the  use  of  the  conjunction  and,  which,  on  the  usual  hypo- 
thesis, must  be  omitted  or  regarded  merely  as  a  sign  of  the  apodosis,  whereas 
in  the  parallel  clause  it  occupies  precisely  the  same  place,  and  can  only  be 
taken  in  its  usual  sense.  Lowth  attempts  to  reproduce  the  form  of  the 
original,  but  not  with  much  success,  by  rendering  the  last  clause,  "  they 
shall  be  yet  speaking  and  I  shall  have  heard."  The  parallel  verbs  both 
mean  to  hear  prayer  in  a  favourable  sense,  and  are  therefore  rendered  in  the 
Vulgate  by  the  cognate  forms  audiam  and  exaudiam.  The  last  verb  is 
curiously  paraphrased  in  the  Septuagint,  /  ivill  say,  what  is  it  ?  (f()al  zi  hri ;) 

V.  25.    The  ivolf  and  the  lamb  shall  feed  as  otic,  and  the  lion  like  th 


463  CHAPTER    LXV. 

ox  shall  cat  straw,  and  the  serpent  dust  {for)  his  food.  They  shall  not 
hurt  and  they  shall  not  cornqjl  (or  destroy)  in  all  my  holy  mountain,  saith 
Jehovah.  Tlie  promise  of  a  happy  change  is  wound  up  in  the  most  appro- 
priate manner  by  repeating  the  prophecy  in  ch.  1 1  :  6-9,  that  all  hurtful 
influences  shall  for  ever  cease  in  the  holy  hill  or  church  of  God.  Yet  Knobel 
ventures  to  assert  that  it  is  an  unmeaning  imitation  of  that  passage,  introduced 
here  without  any  just  connexion,  and  perhaps  by  a  different  hand  from  that 
of  the  ori'nnal  writer.  Another  fact  which  had  escaped  preceding  writers, 
is  that  the  phrase  as  one  belongs  to  the  later  Hebrew,  because  used  in  Ecc. 
11:6,  whereas  it  is  essentially  identical  with  as  one  man  in  Judges  20  :  8. 
1  Sam.  11:7.  It  is  not  a  simple  synonyme  of  thJi'!  together  (the  word  used 
in  ch.  11  :  6),  but  much  stronger  and  more  graphic;  so  that  Lowth  only 
weakens  the  expression  by  proposing  to  assimilate  the  readings  on  the  autho- 
rity of  a  single  manuscript.  Another  point  in  which  the  description  is  here 
heightened  is  the  substitution  of  n^^ ,  a  young  and  tender  lamb,  for  c'S3 ,  a 
he-lamb  of  riper  age.  Ewald  expresses  the  distinction  here  by  using  the 
diminutive  term  Lammlein. — Instead  of  the  lion  like  the  ox,  the  Vulgate  has 
the  lion  and  the  ox  (Ico  et  bos),  and  that  the  et  is  not  an  error  of  the  text 
for  ui  appears  from  the  plural  form  of  the  verb  comedent. — Most  of  the 
modern  writers  construe  "ii'nj  as  a  nominative  absolute,  as  for  the  serpent, 
dust  (shall  be)  his  food.  A  more  obvious  construction  is  to  repeat  the  verb 
shall  eat,  and  consider  dust  and  food  as  in  apposition.  J.  D.  Michaelis 
supplies  continue  (bleibe^,  and  most  writers  regard  this  idea  as  implied 
though  not  expressed  :  The  serpent  shall  continue  to  eat  dust.  Michaelis 
and  Gesenius  suppose  an  allusion  to  the  popular  belief  that  serpents  feed  on 
dust  because  they  creep  upon  the  ground,  and  understand  the  prophecy  to 
be  that  they  shall  henceforth  be  contented  with  this  food  and  cease  to  prey 
on  men  or  other  animals.  But  ihis,  as  Vitringa  well  observes,  would  be  too 
small  a  promise  for  the  context,  since  a  very  small  part  of  the  evils  which 
men  suffer  can  arise  from  this  cause.  He  therefore  understands  the  clause 
to  mean  that  the  original  curse  upon  the  serpent  who  deceived  Eve  (Gen. 
3  :  14)  shall  be  fully  executed.  (Compare  Rev.  20  :  1-3.)  He  refers  to 
some  of  his  contemporaries  as  explaining  it  to  mean  that  the  serpent  should 
henceforth  prey  only  upon  low  and  earthly  men  ;  but  this  would  be  too 
large  a  concession,  and  the  true  sense  seems  to  be  that,  in  accordance  with 
his  ancient  doom,  he  shall  be  rendered  harmless,  robbed  of  his  favourite 
nutriment,  and  made  to  bite  the  dust  at  the  feet  of  his  conqueror.  (Gen. 
3  :  15.  Rom.  16  :  20.  1  John  3  :  8.  Compare  Isaiah  49  :  20.)— The  last 
clause  resolves  the  figures  of  the  first.  The  verbs  are  therefore  to  be  under- 
stood indefinitely,  as  in  ch.  11  :  9;  or  if  they  be  referred  to  the  animals  pre- 
viously mentioned,  it  is  only  a  symbolical  or  tropical  expression  of  the  same 
idea.    Hitzig  gratuitously  says  that  the  verbs  which  in  the  other  place  relate 


CHAPTER    LXVI.  469 

to  men,  are  here  determined  to  refer  to  animals  by  the  connexion  ;  to  which 
Knobel  flippantly  replies  that  this  is  not  the  case,  because  there  is  no  con- 
nexion to  determine  it.  The  truth  is  that  the  form  of  expression  is  the 
same  in  either  case,  except  that  what  begins  a  verse  in  the  eleventh  chapter 
here  concludes  one.  Had  the  passage  here  repeated  been  in  one  of  the 
so-called  later  chapters,  it  would  no  doubt  have  been  cited  as  a  proof  of  the 
author's  identity ;  but  no  such  proof  can  be  admitted  by  the  "  higher  criticism  " 
in  favour  of  identifying  the  writer  of  this  chapter  with  the  genuine  Isaiah. 
Rather  than  listen  to  such  reasoning,  the  "  higher  critics  "  make  it  a  case  of 
imitation  and  abridgment,  and  one  of  them,  as  we  have  seen,  of  ignorant 
interpolation. — For  any  further  explanation  of  this  verse,  the  reader  is  refer- 
red to  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  pp.  224-227. 


CHAPTER    LXVI. 


This  cliapter  winds  up  the  prophetic  discourse  with  an  express  prediction 
of  the  change  of  dispensations,  and  a  description  of  the  difference  between 
them.  Jehovah  will  no  longer  dwell  in  temples  made  with  hands,  v.  1. 
Every  sincere  and  humble  heart  shall  be  his  residence,  v.  2.  The  ancient 
sacrifices,  though  divinely  instituted,  will  henceforth  be  as  hateful  as  the 
rites  of  idolatry,  v.  3.  They  who  still  cling  to  the  abrogated  ritual  will  be 
fearfully  but  righteously  requited,  v.  4.  The  true  Israel  cast  out  by  these 
deluded  sinners  shall  ere  long  be  glorified,  and  the  carnal  Israel  fearfully 
rewarded,  vs.  5,  6.  The  ancient  Zion  may  already  be  seen  travailing  with 
a  new  and  glorious  dispensation,  vs.  7-9.  They  who  mourned  for  her 
seeming  desolation  now  rejoice  in  her  abundance  and  her  honour,  vs.  10-14. 
At  the  same  time  the  carnal  Israel  shall  be  destroyed,  as  apostates  and 
idolaters,  vs.  14-17.  The  place  which  they  once  occupied  shall  now  be 
filled  by  the  elect  from  all  nations,  v.  18.  To  gather  these,  a  remnant  of 
the  ancient  Israel  shall  go  forth  among  the  gentiles,  v.  19.  They  shall 
come  from  every  quarter  and  by  every  method  of  conveyance,  v.  20.  They 
shall  be  admitted  to  the  sacerdotal  honours  of  the  chosen  people,  v.  21. 
This  new  dispensation  is  not  to  be  temporary,  like  the  one  before  it,  but 
shall  last  for  ever,  v.  22.  While  the  spiritual  Israel  is  thus  replenished  from 
all  nations,  the  apostate  Israel  shall  perish  by  a  lingering  decay  in  the  sight 
of  an  astonished  world,  vs.  23,  24. 


470  CHAPTERLXVI. 

V.  1.  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  The  heavens  (are^  my  throne,  and  the  earth 
my  footstool ;  ivhere  is  (or  what  is)  the  house  which  ye  will  build  for  me, 
and  where  is  (or  ichat  is)  the  place  of  my  rest  1  literally  the  place  my  rest, 
i.  e.  the  place  which  is  or  can  be  my  rest  or  permanent  abode.  The  same 
term  is  elsewhere  applied  to  the  temple,  as  distinguished  from  the  tabernacle 
or  moveable  sanctuary.  (See  2  Sam.  7:6.  2  Chron.  6:41.  Ps.  132  :  8.) 
As  to  the  sense  of  nT-^x ,  see  above  on  ch.  50  :  1.  In  this  case  where  is 
less  appropriate  than  what,  as  the  inquiry  seems  to  have  respect  to  the  nature 
or  the  quality  ratiie'r  than  the  mere  locality  of  the  edifice  in  question.  Hitzig 
translates  ri'^a  strictly  a  house,  and  !i32P}  is  variously  rendered  ye  build,  in  the 
English  Bible ;  ye  would  build,  by  Ewald  ;  ye  could  build,  by  Gesenius, 
etc.;  but  the  simplest  and  best  version  is  ye  will  build,  as  including  all  the 
others.  All  interpreters  agree  that  this  question  implies  disapprobation  of 
the  building,  as  at  variance  with  the  great  truth  propounded  in  the  first 
clause,  namely,  that  the  frame  of  nature  is  the  only  material  temple  worthy 
of  Jehovah.  This  obvious  relation  of  the  clauses  is  sufficient  of  itself  to 
set  aside  two  of  the  old  interpretations  of  the  passage.  The  first  is  that  of 
Kimchi,  favoured  more  or  less  by  Calvin  and  some  later  writers,  which 
supposes  that  this  chapter  is  a  counterpart  to  the  first,  and  that  the  Prophet 
here  recurs  to  his  original  theme,  the  corruptions  and  abuses  of  his  own  age. 
But  besides  the  undisputed  references  to  the  future  in  the  latter  part  of  this 
very  chapter,  it  has  been  conclusively  objected  by  Vitringa  to  the  theory  in 
question,  that  in  the  reigns  of  Ahaz  and  Hezekiah  there  could  be  no  thought 
of  building  or  rebuilding,  nor  even  of  repairing  or  adorning  the  temple,  but 
rather  of  despoiling  it.  (2  Kings  16:  17,  18.  18:  15.)  The  same  objection 
lies  against  the  theory  of  Grotius,  that  this  chapter  was  intended  to  console 
the  pious  Jews  who  were  debarred  from  the  customary  public  worship  during 
the  profanation  of  the  temple  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  In  neither  of  these 
cases  could  there  be  occasion  for  objecting  to  the  building  or  rebuilding  of 
the  temple.  Those  who  refer  this  whole  series  of  predictions  to  the  period 
of  the  Babylonish  exile  find  it  hard  to  explain  this  chapter  upon  that  hypo- 
thesis, since  the  building  of  the  temple  is  urged  upon  the  people  as  a  duty 
by  the  acknowledged  prophets  of  the  exile.  In  order  to  facilitate  the  pro- 
cess, some  of  them  detach  it  from  the  foregoing  context,  on  the  ground  of  its 
abrupt  commencement,  which  is  not  at  all  more  striking  than  in  other  cases 
where  no  such  conclusion  has  been  drawn,  because  not  felt  to  be  necessary 
for  the  critic's  purpose.  Eichhorn  found  this  a  fit  occasion  for  the  applica- 
tion of  the  "higher  criticism,"  and  he  accordingly  strikes  out  vs.  1-17  of 
this  chapter  as  an  older  composition  than  the  rest,  the  exact  date  not  defin- 
able, but  certainly  prior  to  the  downf\il  of  the  Jewish  monarchy.  Paulus 
and  Rosenmiiller,  on  the  other  hand,  regard  the  whole  as  later  than  the  first 
return   from   Babylon.      Between  these  extremes  Gesenius  as  usual  under- 


CH  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  V  I.  471 

takes  to  mediate,  condemns  the  first  as  "  trennende  Kiit'ik,"  and  refutes  it 
by  a  copious  but  superfluous  detail  of  minute  coincidences  both  of  thought 
and  language  between  the  disputed  passage  and  the  foregoing  chapters, 
which  he  therefore  supposes  to  belong  to  the  same  period.  From  this  deci- 
sion there  is  no  material  dissent  among  the  later  writers,  although  Hitzig 
asserts  in  the  strongest  terms  the  utter  want  of  connexion  between  this  and 
the  preceding  chapters.  The  same  assertion  might  be  made  with  equal  plau- 
sibility in  any  other  case  of  a  continued  composition  where  the  writer  is  not 
trammelled  by  a  systematic  method,  but  passes  freely  from  one  topic  to 
another,  in  obedience  to  a  lively  and  unchecked  association  of  ideas.  No 
reader  or  interpreter  who  has  not  a  hypothesis  to  verify  will  find  any  reason 
for  supposing  a  greater  interruption  here  than  at  the  end  of  an  ordinary 
paragraph.  The  fallacy  of  the  contrary  assertion  has  been  shown  by  Vitringa 
to  consist  in  assuming  that  the  passages  are  unconnected  unless  the  first 
verse  of  the  second  carries  out  the  thought  expressed  in  the  last  verse  of  the 
first,  whereas  the  chapter  now  before  us  is  in  some  sense  parallel  to  that 
before  it,  taking  up  the  subject  at  the  same  point  and  bringing  it  at  last  to 
the  same  issue.  That  exposition  is  indeed  most  probably  the  true  one  which 
assumes  the  most  intimate  connexion  of  the  chapters  here,  and  is  least 
dependent  upon  forced  divisions  and  arbitrary  intervals  crowded  with  imagi- 
nary events.  Thus  Rosenmiiller  thinks  that  in  the  interval  between  these 
chapters  the  tribes  of  Benjamin  and  Judah  had  resolved  to  exclude  the  others 
from  all  participation  in  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple,  and  that  the  passage 
now  before  us  was  intended  to  reprove  -them  for  their  want  of  charity,  as  if 
this  end  could  be  accomplished  by  proclaiming  the  worthlessness  of  all  mate- 
rial temples,  which  is  tantamount  to  saying,  why  do  you  refuse  to  let  your 
countrymen  assist  in  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple,  since  no  temples  are  of 
any  value?  Hitzig's  imagination  is  still  more  prolific,  and  invents  a  project 
to  erect  another  temple  in  Chaldea  as  a  succedaneum  for  returning  to  Jeru- 
salem. At  the  same  time  his  superior  acuteness  guards  against  the  palpable 
absurdity  already  mentioned,  by  supposing  the  error  here  coi'rected  to  be 
that  of  believing  that  the  mere  erection  of  a  temple  would  discharge  their 
obligations  and  secure  their  welfare,  without  any  reference  to  what  Jehovah 
had  commanded.  They  are  therefore  taught  that  he  has  no  need  of  material 
dwellings,  and  that  these,  to  be  of  any  value,  must  be  built  exactly  when 
and  where  and  as  he  pleases  to  require.  (1  Sam.  15  :  22,  23.)  This  inge- 
nious exposition  would  be  faultless  if  it  rested  upon  any  firmer  basis  than  a 
perfectly  imaginary  fact.  That  there  is  any  proof  of  it  from  other  quarters, 
is  not  pretended.  That  it  is  not  a  necessary  inference  from  that  before  us, 
will  be  clear  when  the  true  interpretation  has  been  given.  It  is  necessary 
first  to  state,  however,  that  while  Hitzig  thus  infers  from  the  text  itself  a 
fact  unknown   to  history  because  it  never  happened,  Henderson  with  equal 


472  C  II  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  V  I . 

confidence  infers  from  it  a  fact  as  little  known  to  history,  but  for  a  very  dif- 
ferent reason.  While  the  one  considers  it  as  proving  that  a  party  of  the 
exiles  in  Babylon  desired  to  build  a  temple  there  instead  of  going  back  to 
Palestine,  the  other  considers  it  as  proving  that  part  of  the  restored  Jews 
will  unlawfully  attempt  to  rebuild  the  old  temple  in  Palestine  itself,  and  that 
this  passage  is  intended  to  reprove  them.  Yet  in  ch.  60  :  7,  13  we  read 
not  only  of  a  sanctuary  to  be  literally  built  of  the  most  costly  timber,  but  of 
an  altar  and  of  victims  to  be  offered  on  it ;  all  which  may  be  tortured  into 
figures,  it  appears,  provided  that  the  future  restoration  of  the  Jews  be  strictly 
expounded  in  a  local  sense. — With  these  interpretations,  and  the  forced 
hypotheses  which  they  involve,  we  may  now  compare  another  which  has 
been  approved  by  various  judicious  writers,  but  by  none  more  clearly  stated 
or  more  successfully  maintained  than  by  Vitringa.  It  is  simply  this,  that 
having  held  up  in  every  point  of  view  the  true  design,  mission,  and  vocation 
of  the  church  or  chosen  people,  its  relation  to  the  natural  descendants  of 
Abraham,  the  causes  which  required  that  the  latter  should  be  stripped  of 
their  peculiar  privileges,  and  the  vocation  of  the  gentiles  as  a  part  of  the 
divine  plan  from  its  origin,  the  Prophet  now  addresses  the  apostate  and 
unbelieving  Jews  at  the  close  of  the  old  dispensation,  who,  instead  of  prepar- 
ing for  the  general  extension  of  the  church  and  the  exchange  of  ceremonial 
for  spiritual  worship,  were  engaged  in  the  rebuilding  and  costly  decoration 
of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  The  pride  and  interest  in  this  great  public 
work,  felt  not  only  by  the  Herods  but  by  all  the  Jews,  is  clear  from  inciden- 
tal statements  of  the  Scriptures  (John  2  :  20.  Matt.  24  :  1)  as  well  as  from 
the  ample  and  direct  assertions  of  Josephus.  That  the  nation  should  have 
been  thus  occupied  precisely  at  the  time  when  the  Messiah  came,  is  one  of 
those  agreements  between  prophecy  and  history  which  cannot  be  accounted 
for  except  upon  the  supposition  of  a  providential  and  designed  assimilation. 
To  the  benefit  of  this  coincidence  the  exposition  which  has  last  been  given 
is  entitled,  and  by  means  of  it  the  probabilities,  already  great,  may  be  said 
to  be  converted  into  certainties,  or  if  any  thing  more  be  needed  for  this 
purpose  it  will  be  afforded  by  the  minuter  j)oinls  of  similarity  which  will  be 
presented  in  the  course  of  the  interpretation.  One  advantage  of  this  exposi- 
tion is  that  it  accounts  for  the  inference  here  drawn  from  a  doctrine  which  was 
known  to  Solomon  and  j)ublic]y  announced  by  him  (I  Kings  8 :  27),  though 
described  by  Gesenius  as  unknown  to  the  early  Hebrews,  who  supposed 
that  God  was  really  confined  to  earthly  temples.  (1  Chron.  23  :  2.  Ps.  99  :  5. 
132  :  5.)  It  may  be  asked,  then,  why  this  trutli  did  not  forbid  the  erection 
of  the  temple  at  first,  as  well  as  its  gorgeous  reconstruction  in  the  time  of 
Christ.  The  answer  is,  that  it  was  necessary  for  a  temporary  purpose,  but 
when  this  temporary  purpose  was  accomplished  it  became  not  only  useless 
hut  unlawful.     Henceforth  the  worship  was  to  be  a  spiritual  worship,  the 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  V  1 .  473 

church  universally  diffused,  and  the  material  sanctuary,  as  J.  D.  Michaelis 
says,  no  longer  an  earthly  residence  for  God  but  a  convenient  place  of  meet- 
ing for  his  people. 

V.  2.  And  all  these  my  oim  hand  made,  and  all  these  were  (or  are), 
saith  Jehovah  ;  and  to  this  one  ivill  I  look,  to  the  ajjlicted  and  contrite  in 
spirit  and  trembling  at  my  ivord.  By  all  these  it  is  universally  admitted 
that  we  are  to  understand  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  of  which  he  claims  to 
be  not  only  the  sovereign,  as  in  the  preceding  verse,  but  the  creator. — The 
next  expression  may  be  differently  understood.  Lowth  supplies  ^?  to  me, 
on  the  authority  of  the  Septuagint  (JaTiv  f^ia),  and  adds  that  this  word  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  the  sense.  But  according  to  Hebrew  usage,  the 
verb  would  not  have  been  expressed  if  this  had  been  the  meaning  ;  and  the 
clause  as  Lowth  completes  it  does  not  mean  they  are  mine,  but  they  tvere 
(or  have  been)  mine.  The  same  objection  lies  in  some  degree  against  the 
explanation  of  ^H!]  without  ''^  as  meaning  they  exist  (i.e.  by  my  creative 
power).  The  reference  is  rather  to  the  time  of  actual  creation,  my  hand 
made  them  and  they  ivere,  i.  e.  began  to  be.  (See  Gen.  1 :  3.  Ps.  33  :  9.) 
Both  tenses  of  the  verb  arc  combined  to  express  the  same  idea  in  Rev. 
4  :  11.  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Ewald  show  the  true  connexion  by  translating, 
'  my  hand  made  them  and  so  they  were  or  came  into  existence.' — It  is  impor- 
tant to  the  just  interpretation  of  these  verses  to  observe  the  climax  in  them. 
First  the  temples  made  by  men  are  contrasted  with  the  great  material  tem- 
ple of  the  universe  ;  then  this  is  itself  disparaged  by  Jehovah  as  his  own 
handiwork,  and  still  more  in  comparison  with  a  nobler  temple  of  a  spiritual 
nature,  the  renewed  and  contrite  heart.  (See  ch.  57  :  15.  2  Cor.  6  :  16.) 
The  same  condescending  favour  is  expressed  for  the  same  objects  elsewhere. 
(Ps.  34  :  19.  138  :  G.)  To  look  to,  is  to  have  regard  to,  and  implies  both 
approbation  and  affection.  (See  Gen.  4  :  4,  5.  Ex.  2  :  25.  Num.  16  :  15. 
Judg.  6:  14.  Ps.  25:  16.)  The  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  make  the  last 
clause  interrogative:  To  whom  shall  I  look  but?  etc. —  Contrite  or  broken 
in  heart  or  spirit  is  a  scriptural  description  of  the  subjects  of  divine  grace  in 
its  humbling  and  subduing  influences.  (Ch.  61  :  1.65  :  14.)  The  Septuagint 
renders  it  7javj[iov  quiet,  implying  patient  acquiescence  in  the  will  of  God. — 
The  nt  refers  to  the  following  description,  like  nk;  in  ch.  56:  2. — Gesenius 
illustrates  hv  inn  by  citing  I  Sam.  4  :  13,  where  Eli  is  described  as  trem- 
bling for  the  ark  of  God  ;  but  Hitzig  justly  represents  the  cases  as  unlike, 
and  explains  the  one  before  us  as  denoting  not  solicitude  about  the  word  of 
God,  but  an  earnest  inclination  to  it,  or  as  Ewald  renders  it  a  trembling  to 
his  word,  i.  e.  an  eager  and  yet  fearful  haste  to  execute  his  will.  (Com- 
pare Hos.  3:5.  1 1  :  10,  1 1.)  The  use  of  the  phrase  in  historical  prose  by 
Ezra  (9:4.    10  :  3)  is  probably  borrowed  from  the  place  before  us. 


474  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  V  I . 

V.  3.  Slai/ing  (he  ox,  smitirig  o  man — sacrificing  the  sheep,  hrealcing 
a  dog^s  neck — offering  an  oblation,  blood  of  swine — making  a  memorial  of 
incense,  blessing  vanity — also  they  have  chosen  their  ways,  and  in  their 
abominations  has  their  soul  delighted.  This  translation,  although  scarcely 
English,  will  convey  some  idea  of  the  singular  form  of  the  original,  and  ren- 
der intelhgible  what  is  said  as  to  the  different  constructions  of  the  sentence. 
— The  first  clause  consists  of  four  similar  members,  in  each  of  which  are 
coupled  a  form  of  sacrifice  under  the  Mosaic  law  and  an  offering  which 
according  to  that  law  was  inadmissible  and  even  revolting.  The  ox  and 
the  sheep  represent  the  animal  sacrifices,  the  J^n;^  or  meat-offering,  and 
the  incense  those  of  an  unbloody  nature.  The  verbs  connected  with  these 
nouns  are  likewise  all  selected  from  the  technical  vocabulary  of  the  law. 
-n\r  and  nnt  both  originally  signify  to  slay  or  slaughter,  but  are  especially 
applied  to  sacrificial  slaughter  in  the  Pentateuch,  tn^?^  is  the  participle  of 
a  verb  which  means  to  cause  to  ascend,  and  in  the  language  of  the  ritual, 
upon  the  altar.  ^^'^]^  is  another,  of  obscurer  origin  and  strict  signification^ 
though  its  use  and  application  are  as  clear  as  any  of  the  rest.  The  modern 
writers  commonly  derive  it  from  the  noun  i^'^sfx  the  technical  name  of  a 
certain  kind  of  offering,  especially  of  incense  (Lev.  24  :  7)  with  or  without 
other  vegetable  substances  (Num.  5  :  26).  It  seems  to  mean  memorial  and 
is  usually  so  translated,  and  explained  upon  the  ground  that  the  fumes  of 
the  incense  were  conceived  of  as  ascending  into  heaven  and  reminding  God 
of  the  worshipper.  The  same  figure  was  then  transferred  to  prayers  and 
other  spiritual  offerings. — Thus  we  read  in  Acts  10:  4  that  the  angel  said 
to  Cornelius,  thy  prayers  and  thine  alms  are  come  up  before  God  for  a 
memorial  eig  ftvTjfioavvov,  the  very  phrase  employed  by  the  Septuagint  in  the 
case  before  us.  The  verb  then  means  to  offer  this  oblation,  but  may  be 
considered  as  expressing  more  directly  the  recalling  of  the  worshipper  to 
God's  remembrance,  as  it  literally  means  to  remind.  Being  also  used  in 
the  sense  of  mentioning,  it  is  so  understood  here  by  Luther,  while  the  Vulgate 
gives  it  the  meaning  of  its  primitive,  remembering. — Smiting  has  here,  as 
often  elsewhere,  the  emphatic  sense  of  wounding  mortally  or  killing.  (Gen. 
4  :  15.  Ex.  2  :  12.  Josh.  20  :  5.  1  Sam.  17  :  26.)  ^"iv  (from  tr^  the 
neck)  is  a  technical  term  used  in  the  law  to  denote  the  breaking  of  the  neck 
of  unclean  animals  when  not  redeemed  from  consecration  to  Jehovah.  (Ex, 
13  :  13.  Deut.  21  :  4.)  It  expresses  therefore  a  peculiar  mode  of  killing. 
The  dog  has  ever  been  regarded  in  the  east  as  peculiarly  unclean,  and  in 
that  light  is  coupled  with  the  swine  not  only  in  the  Bible  (Matt.  7  :  6. 
2  Pet.  2  :  22)  but  by  Horace,  who  twice  names  dog  and  swine  together  as 
the  vilest  animals.  Swijie^s  blood  alone  is  without  a  verb  to  govern  it, 
which  Lowth  thinks  a  defect  in  the  existing  text,  while  Hitzig  ascribes  it  to 
the  haste  of  composition,     Bochart  supplies  eating,  but  Vitringa  properly 


CHAPTERLXVI.  475 

objects  that  all  the  rest  relates  to  sacrifice.  The  simplest  course  is  to  repeat 
the  leading  verb  of  the  same  member. — "illij  is  commonly  supposed  to  mean 
an  idol,  as  it  does  in  a  few  places ;  but  it  is  better  to  retain  its  generic 
sense,  as  more  expressive.  This  is  by  some  understood  to  be  vanity,  non- 
entity, or  worthlessness,  as  attributes  of  idols  ;  by  others,  injustice  or  iniquity 
jn  general.  The  whole  phrase  is  commonly  explained  to  mean  blessing 
(i.  e.  praising  or  worshipping)  an  idol,  or  as  Hitzig  thinks,  saluting  it  by 
kissing  (1  Kings  19  :  18.  Job  31  :  27)  ;  but  Luther  gives  it  the  general 
sense  o[ praising  wickedness,  an  act  to  which  he  supposes  that  of  mentioning 
incense  to  be  likened,  while  Knobel  understands  V.x  adverbially,  and  the 
phrase  as  meaning  one  who  worships  God  unlawfully  or  wickedly  ;  but  this 
would  be  comparing  a  thing  merely  with  itself,  and  as  all  the  other  secondary 
phrases  denote  rites  of  worship,  it  is  better  so  to  understand  this  likewise. 
Such  is  the  meaning  of  the  several  expressions  ;  but  a  question  still  remains 
as  to  their  combination.  The  simplest  syntax  is  to  supply  the  verb  of 
existence,  and  thus  produce  a  series  of  short  propositions  :  He  that  slays 
an  ox  smites  a  man,  etc.  Lowth  and  Ewald  understand  this  to  mean  that 
the  same  person  who  offers  sacrifice  to  God  in  the  form  prescribed  by  law  is 
also  guilty  of  murder  and  idolatry,  a  practice  implying  gross  hypocrisy  as 
well  as  gross  corruption.  The  ancient  versions  all  supply  a  particle  of 
likeness — he  that  slays  an  ox  is  like  one  that  murders  a  man,  etc.  This  is 
adopted  by  most  of  the  modern  writers,  but  of  late  without  supplying  any 
thing,  the  words  being  taken  to  assert  not  mere  resemblance  but  identity, 
which  is  the  strongest  form  of  comparison.  It  is  certainly  more  expressive 
to  say  that  an  offerer  of  cattle  is  a  murderer,  than  to  say  that  he  is  like  one, 
though  the  latter  may  be  after  all  the  real  meaning.  He  is  a  murderer,  i.  e. 
God  so  esteems  him.  According  to  Lowth  and  Ewald,  the  verse  describes 
the  coexistence  of  ritual  formality  with  every  kind  of  wickedness,  especially 
idolatry,  as  in  the  first  chapter.  Gesenius  objects  that  this  presupposes  the 
existence  of  the  Mosaic  ritual  when  the  passage  was  written,  never  dreaming 
that  instead  of  presupposing  it  might  prove  it.  His  own  interpretation  and 
the  common  one  is  that  the  passage  relates  not  to  the  actual  practice  of  the 
abominations  mentioned,  but  to  the  practice  of  iniquity  in  general,  which 
renders  the  most  regular  and  costly  offerings  as  hateful  to  Jehovah  as  the  most 
abominable  rites  of  idolatry.  Among  those  who  adopt  this  explanation  of 
the  sentence  there  is  still  a  difference  as  toils  application.  Gesenius  applies 
it  to  the  worthlessness  of  ritual  performances  without  regard  to  moral  duty  ; 
Hitzig  and  Knobel  to  the  worthlessness  of  sacrifices  which  might  be  offered 
at  the  temple  built  in  Babylonia  ;  Henderson  to  the  unlawfulness  of  sacri- 
fices under  the  Christian  dispensation,  with  particular  reference  to  the  case 
of  the  restored  Jews  and  their  temple  at  Jerusalem.  I  still  regard  Vitringa's 
exposition  as  the  most  exact,  profound,  and  satisfactory,  whether  considered 


476  C  n  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  V  I . 

in  itself  or  In  relation  to  the  whole  preceding  context.  He  agrees  with 
Gesenius  in  making  the  text  the  general  doctrine  that  sacrifice  is  hatcfid  in 
the  sight  of  God  if  offered  in  a  wicked  spirit,  but  with  a  special  refercnco 
to  those  wb.o  still  adlicrcd  to  the  old  sacrifices  after  the  great  sacrifice  for 
sin  was  come  and  had  been  offered  once  for  all.  Thus  understood  this 
verse  extends  to  sacrifices  that  which  the  foregoing  verses  said  of  the  temple, 
after  the  change  of  dispensations. 

V.  4.  I  also  will  choose  their  vexations,  and  their  fear  I  will  bring 
upon  them;  because  I  called  and.  there  was  no  one  answering,  I  spake  and 
they  did  not  hear,  and  they  did  evil  in  my  eyes,  end  that  which  J  delight 
not  in  they  chose.  The  larger  part  of  this  verse,  from  because  to  the  end, 
is  repeated  from  ch.  .65  :  12,  and  serves  not  only  to  connect  the  passages 
as  parts  of  an  unbroken  composition,  but  also  to  identify  the  subjects  of 
discourse  in  the  two  places.  According  to  the  usual  analogy  of  tlie  masoretic 
interpunction,  the  first  words  of  the  verse  before  us  ought  to  be  connected 
as  a  parallel  clause  with  the  last  words  of  v.  3,  partly  because  each  verse  is 
complete  and  of  the  usual  length  without  the  clause  in  question,  partly 
because  the  parallelism  is  indicated  by  the  repetition  of  the  05.  This  repe- 
tition occurs  elsewhere  as  an  equivalent  to  the  Greek  nai — x«t',  the  Latin 
€t — et,  and  our  both — and,  as  in  the  phrase  also  yesterday,  also  to-day  (Ex. 
5  :  14).  In  the  case  before  us  it  is  paraphrased  by  some  translators,  as  they 
chose,  so  I  choose,  by  others,  as  well  they  as  1  chose ;  but  perhaps  the 
nearest  equivalent  in  English  is,  on  their  part  they  chose,  and  on  my  part  I 
choose.  The  obvious  antithesis  between  the  pronoun  of  the  third  and  first 
person  precludes  the  supposition  that  a  different  class  of  persons  is  denoted 
by  iT|r?  ca .  The  common  version  of  c^^i^J-n  (^delusions)  seems  to  be  founded 
on  a  misconception  of  the  Vulgate  illusioncs,  which  was  probably  intended 
to  suggest  the  idea  of  derision  like  the  funaiy^ara  of  the  Scptuagint.  The 
true  sense  of  the  word  here  is  essentially  the  same  but  somewhat  stronger, 
viz.  annoyances,  vexations,  which  last  is  employed  to  represent  it  by 
Cocceius.  It  is  in  the  cognate  sense  of  petulance,  caprice,  that  it  is  used 
to  denote  children  in  ch.  3  :  4.  This  etymological  afHnity  is  wholly  disre- 
garded by  translating  the  word  here  calamities,  with  Lowth,  Gesenius,  and 
others.  Their  fear  is  the  evil  which  they  fear,  as  in  Prov.  10  :  24,  where 
the  same  idea  is  expressed  almost  in  the  same  words. 

V.  5.  Hear  the  word  of  Jehovah,  ye  that  tremble  at  his  word.  Your 
brethren  say,  (^those)  hating  you  and  casting  you  out  for  my  name^s  sake, 
Jehovah  will  be  glorified  and  we  shall  gaze  upon  your  joy — a7id  they  shall 
be  ashamed.  Trembling  at  (or  rather  to)  Jehovah's  word  seems  to  mean 
reverently  waiting  for  it.     Ye  that  thus  expect  a  message  from  Jehovah, 


CHAPTERLXVI.  477 

now  receive  it.  Vitringa  adheres  strictly  to  the  inasorelic  accents,  which 
connect  for  my  name' s  sake  with  what  follows  :  '  Your  brethren  say — those 
hating  you  and  casting  you  out — for  my  name's  sake  Jehovah  shall  be 
glorified.'  To  this  construction  there  are  two  objections  :  first,  that  the 
same  persons  who  are  three  times  mentioned  in  the  plural  are  abruptly  made 
to  speak  in  the  singular,  for  7ny  name's  sake,  an  enallage  which  althouoh 
possible  is  not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity  ;  and  secondly,  that /or  my 
name's  sake  is  not  the  appropriate  expression  of  the  thought  supposed  to  be 
intended,  which  would  rather  be  hy  my  means.  The  majority  of  later 
writers  are  agreed  in  so  far  departing  from  the  accents  as  to  join  the  phrase 
in  question  with  what  goes  before ;  which  is  the  less  objectionable  here,  as 
we  have  seen  already  in  the  preceding  verses  some  appearance  of  inaccu- 
racy in  the  masoretic  interpunction.  The  neuter  verb  las"^  is  here  applied 
to  God,  as  it  is  elsewhere  to  men  (Job  14  :  21)  and  cities  (Ezek.  27  :  25), 
in  the  sense  of  being  glorious  rather  than  glorified,  which  would  require  a 
passive  form.  It  may  be  construed  either  as  an  optative  or  future ;  but  the 
last  is  more  exact,  and  really  includes  the  other.  All  are  agreed  that  these 
two  words  (f^p"]  '^s^l)  are  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  brethren  before 
mentioned  ;  but  it  is  made  a  question  whether  the  next  phrase,  tanniaba  rtx'isT , 
is  spoken  by  them  likewise.  Piscator,  followed  by  the  English  and  Dutch 
versions,  makes  this  the  language  of  the  Prophet,  and  translates  it,  and  he 
shall  appear  to  your  joy.  Besides  the  doubtful  sense  thus  put  upon  the 
preposition,  this  translation  really  involves  a  change  of  pointing,  so  as  to 
read  nsj"!?  or  a  very  unusual  construction  of  the  participle.  Vitringa  makes 
these  words  the  language  of  a  chorus,  and  supposes  them  to  mean,  'but  we 
shall  see  your  joy  and  they  shall  be  ashamed.'  The  modern  writers  who 
refer  ^^'ii ,  as  we  have  seen,  to  God  himself,  are  obliged  to  make  nx'is  the 
language  of  another  speaker, — unless  they  assume  a  pluralis  majestaticus,  as 
some  old  Jewish  writers  did,  according  to  Aben  Ezra,  which  they  do  by 
adding  it  to  what  immediately  precedes, — '  Your  brethren  say,  Jehovah  shall 
be  glorified  and  we  shall  see  your  happiness ;'  the  verb  nxn  ,  as  usual  when 
followed  by  the  preposition  3 ,  meaning  to  view  or  gaze  at  with  strong  feeling, 
and  in  this  case  with  delight.  This  construction  is  unanimously  sanctioned 
by  the  latest  German  writers,  and  is  in  itself  much  simpler  and  more  natural 
than  any  other.  As  to  the  application  of  the  verse  there  is  the  usual  diver- 
sity of  judgment.  Jarchi  and  Abarbenel  apply  it  to  the  treatment  of  the 
Jews  in  their  present  exile  by  the  Mohammedans  and  Romans,  called  their 
brethren  because  descendants  of  Ishmael  and  Esau.  Gesenius  seems  to 
understand  it  as  relating  to  the  scornful  treatment  of  the  exiled  Jews  in 
Babylon  by  their  heathen  enemies.  Knobel  denies  that  the  latter  would  be 
spoken  of  as  brethren,  and  applies  it  to  the  treatment  of  the  pious  Jews  by 
their  idolatrous   countrymen.     Hitzig   questions   even    this    application   of 


478  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  V  I . 

brethren,  and  explains  the  verse  of  the  contempt  with  which  the  exiles  who 
were  willing  to  return  were  treated  by  the  unbelievers  who  remained  behind. 
But  how  could  those  who  thus  remained  be  said  to  cast  out  such  as  insisted 
on  returning?  The  phrase  may  possibly  be  taken  in  the  vague  sense  of 
despising  or  treating  with  contempt ;  but  this  diluted  explanation,  though 
admissible  in  case  of  necessity,  cannot  take  precedence  of  the  strict  one,  or 
of  the  interpretation  which  involves  it.  Vitringa,  although  rather  infelicitous 
in  his  construction  and  translation  of  the  sentence,  has  excelled  all  other 
writers  in  his  exhibition  of  its  general  import.  He  applies  it,  in  accordance 
with  his  previous  hypothesis,  to  the  rejection  of  the  first  Christian  converts 
by  the  unbelieving  Jews  :  Hear  the  word  (or  promise)  of  Jehovah,  ye  that 
wait  for  it  with  trembling  confidence :  your  brethren  (the  unconverted 
Jews)  who  hate  you  and  cast  you  out  for  my  name's  sake,  have  said  (in  so 
doing),  '  Jehovah  will  be  glorious  (or  glorify  himself  in  your  behalf  no  doubt), 
and  we  shall  witness  your  salvation  '  (a  bitter  irony  like  that  in  ch.  5  :  19)  ; 
but  they  (who  thus  speak)  shall  themselves  be  confounded  (by  beholding 
what  they  now  consider  so  incredible).  Besides  the  clearness  and  coherence 
of  this  exposition  in  itself  considered,  and  its  perfect  harmony  with  what  we 
have  arrived  at  as  the  true  sense  of  the  whole  foregoing  context,  it  is  strongly 
recommended  by  remarkable  coincidences  with  the  New  Testament,  some 
of  which  Vitringa  specifies.  That  the  unbelieving  Jews  might  still  be 
called  the  brethren  of  the  converts,  if  it  needed  either  proof  or  illustration, 
might  derive  it  from  Paul's  mode  of  address  to  them  in  Acts  22  :  1,  and  of 
reference  to  them  in  Rom.  9  :  3.  The  phrase  those  hating  yon  may  be 
compared  with  John  15  :  18.  17  :  14.  Matt.  10  :  22.  1  Thess.  2  :  14  ; 
and  casting  you  out  with  John  16  :  2.  and  Matthew  18  :  17  ;  for  my 
name's  sake  with  Matt.  24  :  10  ;  to  which  may  be  added  the  interesting 
fact  that  the  verb  trna  and  its  derivatives  are  used  to  this  day  by  the  Jews  in 
reference  to  excommunication.  Thus  understood  the  verse  is  an  assurance 
to  the  chosen  remnant  in  whom  the  true  Israel  was  to  be  perpetuated,  that 
although  their  unbelieving  countrymen  might  cast  them  out  with  scorn  and 
hatred  for  a  time,  their  spite  should  soon  be  utterly  confounded.  The  great 
truth  involved  in  the  change  of  dispensations  may  be  signally  developed  and 
exemplified  hereafter,  as  Henderson  infers  from  this  passage  that  it  will  be, 
in  the  case  of  the  restored  Jews  who  receive  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel  and 
their  brethren  who  persist  in  endeavouring  to  establish  the  old  ritual ;  but 
we  dare  not  abandon  the  fulfilment  which  has  actually  taken  place  for  the 
sake  of  one  which  may  never  happen,  since  we  have  not  been  able  thus  far 
to  discover  any  clear  prediction  of  it. 

V.  6.  A  voice  of  tumult  from  the  city  1     A  voice  from  the  temple !    The 
toice  of  Jehovah,  rendering  requital  to  his  enemies !     The  Hebrew  word 


CHAPTER    LXVI.  479 

*,isttj  is  never  applied  elsewhere  to  a  joyful  cry  or  a  cry  of  lamentation,  but 
to  the  tumult  of  war,  the  rushing  sound  of  armies  and  the  sliock  of  battle, 
in  which  sense  it  is  repeatedly  employed  by  Isaiah.     The  enemies   here 
mentioned   must  of  course  be  those  who  had  just  been  described  as  the 
despisers  and  persecutors  of  their  brethren,  and  whose  confusion  after  being 
threatened  generally  in  the  verse  preceding  is  here  graphically  represented 
in  detail.     Even  Aben  Ezra  says,  these  enemies  of  God  are  those  who  cast 
the  others  out.     The  description  therefore  cannot  without  violence  be  under- 
stood of  foreign  or  external  enemies.     These  data  furnished  by  usage  and 
the  context  will  enable  us  to  estimate  the  various  interpretations  of  the  verse 
before  us.     If  what  has  just  been  stated  be  correct,  the  noise  heard  by  the 
Prophet  cannot  be  the  rejoicing  of  the  Maccabees  and  their  adherents  when 
the   temple   was  evacuated   by   Antiochus,  as   Grotius   imagines ;  nor  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel  by  the  apostles  beginning  at  Jerusalem,  as  Junius 
and  Tremellius  think  ;  nor  a  voice  calling  for  vengeance  on   the  Romans, 
according  to  Jarchi ;  nor  the  blasphemies  of  the  heathen,  according  to  Abar- 
benel.     Nor  can  the  words,  if  rightly  understood  as  meaning  the  tumult  of 
war,  be  applied  to  the  destruction  of  Gog  and  Magog,  as  by  Kimchi  ;  or  to 
any  other  external  enemies,  as  by  the  modern  Germans.     These  indeed  are 
not  a  little  puzzled  to  explain  the  verse  in  any  consistency  with  their  hypo- 
thesis.    Gesenius  admits  that  there  is  so  far  a  difficulty  as  the  anti-theocratic 
party  stayed  behind  in  Babylon,  and  queries  whether  the  Prophet  may  not 
have  expected  many  such  to  go  up  in  the  hope  of  worldly  advantages,  and 
there  to  be  smitten  by  the  divine  judgments  !     Maurer  as  usual   sees  no 
difficulty  in  the  case,  because  Jehovah  is  described  as  punishing  the  wicked 
Jews  not  in  Jerusalem  but  from  it.     Hitzig  makes  it  a  description  of  the 
general  judgment  foretold  by  Joel,  when  all  the  nations  should  be  judged  at 
Jerusalem  (Joel  4  :  2).     Knobel  confidently  adds  that  the  Prophet  expected 
this  great  judgment  to  fall  specially  upon  the  Babylonians,  whom  Cyrus 
had  not   punished   sufficiently,   and    with    them   on    the   idolatrous   exiles. 
Umbreit,  who  seems  to  float  in  mid-air  between  faith  and  unbelief  in  his 
interpretation  of  this  passage,  makes  the  noise  a  joyful  noise  and  separates 
!i  from  Jehovah's  voice  bringing  vengeance  to  his  external  enemies. — The 
only  Christian  interpreter  that  need  be  quoted  here  is  Henderson,  who  says 
that  "  by  a  remarkable  and  astounding  interposition  of  Jehovah  the  scheme  of 
the  Jews  shall  be  defeated  ;  the  very  temple  which  they  shall  be  in  the  act 
of  erecting  shall  be  the  scene  of  judgment."     Then  adopting  the  groundless 
notion  of  the  German  writers,  that  the  voice  of  Jehovah  always  means  thun- 
der, he  adds  that  "in  all  probability  the  projected  temple  will  be  destroyed 
by  lightning."     This  is  certainly  sufficiently  specific,  but  by  no  means  so 
entitled  to  belief  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  which  has  already  taken 
place.     In  strict  adherence  to  the  usage  of  the  words  and  to  requisitions  of 


480  CHAPTERLXVI. 

the  context,  both  immediate  and  remote,  the  verse  may  be  applied  to  the 
frivinor  up  of  Zion  and  the  temple  to  its  enemies,  as  a  final  demonstration 
that  the  old  economy  was  at  an  end,  and  that  the  sins  of  Israel  were  now  to 
be  visited  on  that  generation.  The  assailants  of  Jerusalem  and  of  the  Jews 
were  now  no  longer  those  of  God  himself,  but  rather  chosen  instruments  to 
execute  his  vengeance  on  his  enemies,  the  unbelieving  Jews  themselves. 
Vitrin^a  f^oes  too  far  when  he  restricts  the  tumult  here  described  to  the 
noise  actually  made  by  the  Romans  in  the  taking  of  Jerusalem. — It  rather 
comprehends  the  whole  confusion  of  the  siege  and  conquest,  and  a  better 
commentary  on  this  brief  but  grand  prediction  cannot  be  desired  than  that 
afforded  by  Josephus  in  his  narrative  of  what  may  be  regarded  as  not  only 
the  most  dreadful  siege  on  record  but  in  some  respects  the  most  sublime  and 
critical  conjuncture  in  all  history,  because  coincident  with  the  transition  from 
the  abrogated  system  of  the  old  economy  to  the  acknowledged  introduction 
of  the  new,  a  change  of  infinitely  more  extensive  influence  on  human  cha- 
racter and  destiny  than  many  philosophical  historians  have  been  willing  to 
admit  or  even  able  to  discover. 

V.  7.  Before  she  travailed  she  brought  forth,  before  her  pain  came 
she  was  delivered  of  a  male.  All  interpreters  agree  that  the  mother  here 
described  is  Zion,  that  the  figure  is  essentially  the  same  as  in  ch.  49:  21, 
and  that  in  both  cases  an  increase  of  numbers  is  represented  as  a  birth, 
while  in  that  before  us  the  additional  idea  of  suddenness  is  expressed  by  the 
fii/ure  of  an  unexpected  birth.  The  difference  between  the  cases  is  that  in 
the  other  a  plurality  of  children  is  described,  whne  in  this  the  whole  increase 
is  represented  in  the  aggregate  as  a  single  birth.  As  to  the  specification  of 
the  sex,  some  regard  it  as  a  mere  illustration  of  the  oriental  predilection  for 
male  children,  not  intended  to  have  any  special  emphasis,  while  others  make 
it  significant  of  strength  as  well  as  numbers  in  the  increase  of  the  people. 
As  to  the  application  of  the  passage  there  is  nothing  in  the  terms  employed 
which  can  determine  it,  but  it  must  follow  the  sense  put  upon  the  foregoing 
context  or  the  general  hypothesis  of  the  interpreter.  Those  who  see  nothing 
in  these  chapters  but  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon  explain  this 
verse  as  meaning  simply  that  the  joyful  return  of  the  exiles  to  the  long  for- 
saken city  would  be  like  an  unexpected  birth  to  a  childless  mother.  Accord- 
ing to  Henderson,  "  the  language  forcibly  expresses  the  sudden  and  unex- 
pected reproduction  of  the  Jewish  nation  in  their  own  land  in  the  latter  day  ; 
their  future  recovery  is  the  object  of  the  divine  purpose,  and  every  provi- 
dential arrangement  shall  be  made  for  effecting  it ;  yet  the  event  shall  be 
unexpectedly  sudden."  In  both  these  cases  there  is  an  accommodation  of 
the  passage  to  the  exegetical  hypothesis  without  any  attempt  to  show  that 
the  latter  derives  confirmation  from  it.     In  both  cases  too  there  is  a  certain 


C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  V  1 .  481 

abruptness  in  the  transition  fiom  the  judgment  threatened  in  the  preceding 
verse  to  the  promise  here  recorded.  Knobel  somewhat  awkwardly  describes 
the  general  judgment  on  the  nations  at  Jerusalem,  including  specially  the 
Babylonians  and  apostate  Jews,  as  being  foUou-ed  by  the  speedy  return  of 
the  believing  exiles.  Henderson  in  like  manner  makes  the  restoration /o/Zoz^; 
the  destruction  of  the  projected  temple  by  lightning,  and  yet  supposes  it  to 
be  described  as  unexpectedly  sudden.  Such  retrogressions  in  the  order  of 
events  are  not  without  example,  but  they  certainly  give  no  advantage  to 
the  theories  in  which  they  are  involved  over  such  as  have  no  need  of  them. 
Of  this  description  is  Vitringa's  doctrine  that  the  passage  has  respect  to  the 
vocation  of  the  gentiles  as  immediately  consequent  upon  the  excision  of  the 
Jews — a  sequence  of  events  which  is  continually  held  up  to  view  in  the 
New  Testament  history.  (Luke  24  :  47.  Acts  3  :  26.  13  :  46.  18  :  6. 
Rom.  1  :  16.  2  :  10.)  The  only  questionable  point  in  his  interpretation  is 
his  pressing  the  mere  letter  of  the  metaphor  too  far  by  representing  the  gen- 
tiles or  the  gentile  churches  as  the  male  child  of  which  the  apostolic  church 
was  unexpectedly  delivered.  It  is  perfectly  sufficient  and  in  better  taste, 
to  understand  the  parturition  as  a  figure  for  the  whole  eventful  crisis  of  the 
change  of  dispensations,  and  the  consequent  change  in  the  condition  of  the 
church.  This  indestructible  ideal  person,  when  she  might  have  seemed  to 
be  reduced  to  nothing  by  the  defection  of  the  natural  Israel,  is  vastly  and 
suddenly  augmented  by  the  introduction  of  the  gentiles,  a  succession  of 
events  which  is  here  most  appropriately  represented  as  the  birth  of  a  male 
child  without  the  pains  of  childbirth. 

V.  S.  TVho  hath  heard  such  a  thing  ?  ivho  hath  seen  such  things  1 
Shall  a  land  he  brought  forth  in  one  day,  or  shall  a  nation  be  born  at 
once  1  For  Zion  hath  travailed,  she  hath  also  brought  forth  her  children. 
This  verse,  in  the  form  of  pointed  interrogation,  represents  the  event  previ- 
ously mentioned  as  without  example.  The  terms  of  the  sentence  are  exceed- 
ingly appropriate  both  to  the  return  from  Babylon  and  the  future  restoration 
of  the  Jews,  but  admit  at  the  same  time  of  a  wider  application  to  the  change 
of  economy,  the  birth  of  the  church  of  the  New  Testament.  'j"^x  appears 
to  be  construed  as  a  masculine,  because  it  is  put  for  the  inhabitants,  as  in 
ch.  9  :  18.  26  :  18  (compare  Judges  18  :  30)  ;  or  the  verb  may  take  that 
form  according  to  the  usual  license  when  the  object  follows,  as  in  Gen. 
13  :  6.  Ps.  105  :  30. — The  causative  sense  given  to  this  verb  in  the  Eno-lish 
and  some  other  versions  is  not  approved  by  the  later  lexicographers,  who 
make  ^ri!i"'  a  simple  passive.  Beck's  application  of  the  phrase  to  the  crea- 
tion of  the  earth  is  forbidden  by  the  parallel  term  "^is . — To  avoid  the  appa- 
rent contradiction  between  this  and  the  foregoing  verse  as  to  the  pains  of 
childbirth,  some  explain  t^'ib''  n5  n^n  to  mean,  '  scarcely  had  she  travailed 

31 


48-2  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  V  I . 

when  she  brought  forth,'  which  is  a  forced  construction.  Hitzig  attains  the 
same  end  by  making  sons  the  object  of  both  verbs,  and  making  both  synony- 
mous. Both  these  expedients  are  unnecessary,  as  the  reference  is  merely 
to  the  short  time  required  for  tlie  birth,  as  if  he  had  said,  she  has  (already) 
travailed,  she  has  also  brought  forth. 

V.  9.  Shall  I  bring  to  (he  birth  and  not  cause  to  bring  forth  ?  saiih 
Jehovah.  Or  am  I  the  one  causing  to  bring  forth,  and  shall  I  shut  up  1 
saith  thy  God.  ^Vithout  pretending  to  enumerate  the  various  explanations 
of  this  verse,  some  of  which  are  as  disgusting  as  absurd,  it  will  be  sufficient 
to  adduce  as  specimens  Jerome's  interpretation,  which  supposes  him  to  ask 
whether  he  who  causes  others  to  bring  forth  shall  not  bring  forth  himself; 
and  that  of  Cocceius,  whether  he  who  causes  others  to  bring  forth  shall  not 
cause  Zion  to  do  so  likewise.  The  sense  now  put  upon  the  figure  by  the 
general  consent  of  interpreters,  is  that  he  who  begins  the  work  may  be 
expected  to  accomplish  it,  to  be  both  its  author  and  its  finisher.  The  reason 
why  it  is  expressed  in  this  form  is  not  any  peculiar  adaptation  or  expressive- 
ness in  these  unusual  metaphors,  but  simply  that  the  increase  of  the  church 
had  been  already  represented  as  a  birth,  and  the  additional  ideas  of  the 
writer  are  expressed  without  a  change  of  figure.  The  precise  connexion  of 
the  verse  with  that  before  it  seems  to  be  that  it  extenuates  the  wonder 
which  had  been  described  by  representing  it  as  something  which  was  to  be 
expected  in  the  case  supposed.  That  is  to  say,  if  God  had  undertaken  to 
supply  the  place  of  what  his  church  had  lost  by  new  accessions,  the  extent 
and  suddenness  of  the  effect  could  not  be  matters  of  surprise.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  would  have  been  indeed  surprising,  if  he  who  began  the  change  had 
stopped  it  short,  and  interfered  for  the  prevention  of  his  own  designs. — On 
the  metaphor  of  this  verse  and  the  one  preceding,  compare  ch.  26  :  18;  on 
the  peculiar  use  of  "i:?-^  in  this  application.  Gen.  16  :  2.  20  :  18. 

V.  10.  Rejoice  ye  ivith  Jerusalem  and  exult  in  her,  oil  that  love  her ;  be 
glad  with  her  with  gladness,  all  those  mourning  for  her.  This  is  an  indirect 
prediction  of  the  joyful  change  awaiting  Zion,  clothed  in  the  form  of  a  com- 
mand or  invitation  to  her  friends  to  rejoice  with  her.  The  expression  i^3  si^'^a 
may  either  have  the  same  sense,  viz.  that  of  sympathetic  joy,  or  it  may 
mean  rejoice  in  her  or  within  her  in  a  local  sense,  or  iji  her  as  the  object  of 
your  joy,  all  which  constructions  are  grammatical  and  justifiable  by  usage. 
Different  interpreters,  according  to  their  various  exegetical  hypotheses, 
explain  this  as  a  prophecy  of  Israel's  ancient  restoration  from  the  Babylonish 
exile,  or  of  their  future  restoration  from  the  present  exile  and  dispersion,  or 
of  the  glorious  enlargement  of  the  church  after  the  excision  of  the  unbelieving 
Jews  and  the  throes  of  that  great  crisis  in  which  old  things  passed  away  and 


CHAPTERLXVI.  483 

the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth  came  into  existence  ;  which  last  I  beHeve 
to  be  the  true  sense,  for  reasons  which  have  been  aheady  fully  stated. 

V.  1 1 .  That  ye  may  suck  and  be  satisfied  from  the  breast  of  her  con- 
solations, that  ye  may  milk  out  and  enjoy  yourselves  from  the  fulness  (or 
the  full  breast)  of  her  glory.  Those  who  have  sympathized  with  Zion  in 
her  joys  and  sorrows  sliall  partake  of  her  abundance  and  her  glory.  The 
figure  of  a  mother  is  continued,  but  beautifully  varied.  The  Targum  takes 
litj  in  its  usual  sense  of  spoil  or  plunder ;  but  see  above  on  ch.  60  :  16. 
Hendewerk,  with  some  of  the  older  writers,  reads  because  instead  of  so  that 
or  in  order  that ;  but  this  is  a  needless  substitution  of  a  meaning  rare  and 
doubtful  at  the  best.  Suck  and  be  satisfied,  milk  out  and  enjoy  yourselves 
may  be  regarded  as  examples  of  hendiadys,  meaning  suck  to  satiety  and 
milk  out  with  delight  ;  but  no  such  change  in  the  form  of  the  translation  is 
required  or  admissible.  The  Targum  explains  f^]  as  meaning  wine  ;  Lowth 
proposes  to  read  'pi  provision,  but  there  is  no  such  word  ;  Cocceius  trans- 
lates it  animals,  as  in  Ps.  50  :  11.  SO  :  14,  which  makes  no  sense  ;  Jerome 
and  Symmachus  make  it  mean  variety  (omnimoda)  ;  but  the  modern  writers 
are  agreed  that  it  originally  signifies  radiation  or  a  radiating  motion,  then  the 
radiating  flow  of  milk  or  other  liquids,  and  then  fulness  or  the  full  breast 
whence  the  radiation  flows.  Glory  includes  wealth  or  abundance,  but  much 
more,  viz.  all  visible  superiority  or  excellence. 

V.  12.  For  thus  saith  Jehovah,  Behold  I  am  extending  to  her  peace  like 
a  river,  and  like  an  overfloiving  stream  the  glory  of  nations — and  ye  shall 
suck — on  the  side  shall  ye  be  borne,  and  on  the  knees  shall  ye  be  dandled. 
As  ^x  is  sometimes  interchanged  with  ^?  ,  Vitringa  here  translates  extending 
over,  i.  e.  so  as  to  cover  or  submerge.      But  the  force  and   beauty  of  the 
Prophet's  figure  is  secured,  without  any  departure  from  the  ordinary  usage, 
by  supposing  it  to  represent  a  river  suddenly  or  gradually  widening  its  chan- 
nel or  its  flow  until  it  reaches  to  a  certain  spot,  its  actual  submersion  beino- 
not  expressed,  though  it  may  be  implied.     That  the  particle  retains  its  pro- 
per meaning  may  be  argued  fron)  the  use  of  the  entire  phrase  in  Gen.  39 :  21. 
Another  suggestion  of  Vitringa,  which  has  been  rejected  by  the  later  writers 
is  that  "iinj  and  ^na  here  denote  specifically  the  Euphrates  and  the  Nile 
which  last  he  regards  as  a  derivative  of  the  Hebrew  word.     But  the  incor- 
rectness of  this  etymology,  the  absence  of  the  article  which  elsewhere  makes 
the  nouns  specific,  and  the  uselessness  of  this  supposition  to  the  force  and 
beauty  of  the  passage,  all  conspire  to  condemn  it.     Peace  is  here  to  be 
taken  in  its  frequent  sense  of  welfare  or  prosperity.      (See  above,  on  ch. 
48 :  18.)    The  words  and  ye  shall  suck  are  added  to  announce  a  resumption 
of  the  figure  of  the  foregoing  verse.     The  Targum  and  Vulgate  read  i\a  b» 


484 


CHAPTER    LXVI. 


instead  of  'r^  1;? ,  while  Houbigant  and  Lowth  insert  the  fornner  after  sucJc 
(ye  shall  suck  at  the  breast,  ye  shall  be  carried  at  the  side).  Equally  gra- 
tuitous is  the  addition  of  the  pronoun  by  Henderson  (ye  shall  suck  them) 
and  Hendewerk  (ye  shall  suck  it),  and  Gesenius's  paraphrase  (zum  Gcnuss). 
For  the  sense  of  i:i  ^? ,  see  above,  on  ch.  60  :  4,  and  compare  ch.  49  :  22, 
The  objects  of  address  in  this  verse,  are  the  sons  of  Zion,  to  be  gathered 
from  all  nations. 

V.  13.  As  a  man  whom  his  mother  comfortcih,  so  will  I  comfort  yon, 
and  in  Jerusalem  shall  ye  be  comforted.  De  Wette's  version, '  as  a  man  who 
comforts  his  mother'  (der  seine  Mutter  trostet)  is  so  utterly  at  variance  with 
the  form  of  the  original,  that  it  must  be  regarded  as  an  inadvertence,  or  per- 
haps as  an  error  of  the  press.  The  image  48  :  18  is  essentially  the  same 
with  that  in  ch.  49  :  15,  but  with  a  striking  variation.  The  English  Version, 
which,  in  multitudes  of  cases,  inserts  man  where  the  original  expression  is  inde- 
finite, translating  oi'5i(V,  for  example,  always  no  man,  here  reverses  the  process 
and  dilutes  a  man  to  one.  The  same  liberty  is  taken  by  many  other  versions 
old  and  new,  occasioned  no  doubt  by  a  feeling  of  the  incongruity  of  making 
a  full-grown  man  the  subject  of  maternal  consolations.  The  difficulty  mighty 
if  it  were  necessary,  be  avoided  by  explaining  tt3ix  to  mean  a  man-child,  as 
it  does  in  Gen.  4:1.1  Sam.  1  :  11,  and  in  many  other  cases.  But  the 
truth  is  that  the  solecism,  which  has  been  so  carefully  expunged  by  these 
translators,  is  an  exquisite  trait  of  patriarchal  manners,  in  their  primitive 
simplicity.  Compare  Gen.  24  :  67.  Judges  17:2.  1  Kings  2  :  19,  20, 
and  the  affecting  scenes  between  Thetis  and  Achilles  in  the  Iliad.  Of  the 
modern  writers,  Umbreit  alone  does  justice  to  this  beautiful  allusion,  not 
only  by  a  strict  translation,  but  by  adding  as  a  gloss,  *  with  the  consolation 
of  a  mother  who,  as  no  other  can,  soothes  the  ruffled  spirit  of  a  man  {des 
Mannes).'  Equally  characteristic  is  the  brief  remark  of  Hitzig,  that  'the 
ti'^x  is  not  well  chosen.' — Lowth  in  another  respect  shows  what  would  now 
be  thought  a  morbid  distaste  for  simplicity  by  changing  the  passive,  ye  shall 
he  comforted  into  ye  shall  receive  consolation,  in  order  to  avoid  a  repetition 
which  to  any  unsophisticated  ear  is  charming. — The  in  Jerusalem  suggests 
the  only  means  by  which  these  blessings  are  to  be  secured,  viz.  a  union  of 
afTection  and  of  interest  with  the  Israel  of  God,  to  whom  alone  they  are 
promised. 

V.  14.  And  ye  shall  see,  and  your  heart  shall  leap  (with  joy),  and  your 
hones  like  grass  shall  sprout,  and  the  hand  of  Jehovah  shall  be  known  to 
his  servants,  and  he  shall  be  indignant  at  his  enemies.  The  object  of 
address  still  continues  to  be  those  who  had  loved  Zion,  and  had  mourned 
for  her,  and  whom  God  had  promised  to  comfort  in  Jerusalem.     They  are 


CHAPTERLXVI.  485 

here  assured  that  they  shall  see  for  themselves  the  fulfilment  of  these  promises. 
— Ewald  gives  bb  its  primary  sense  of  bounding,  leaping,  which  agrees  well 
with  the  strong  figure  in  the  next  clause,  where  the  bones,  as  the  seat  of 
strength,  or  the  framework  of  the  body,  are  compared  with  springing  herbage 
to  denote  their  freshness  and  vigour.  Here  again  Ewald  makes  the  lano-uao-e 
more  expressive  by  translating  become  green  like  the  young  grass,  which, 
however,  is  a  paraphrase  and  not  an  exact  version,  as  the  primary  meaning 
of  tiie  Hebrew  verb  is  to  burst  out  or  put  forth.  (For  the  figure,  compare 
ch.  27  :  6.  53  :  1 1.  Job  21  :  24.  Prov.  3:8.  15  :  30.  Ps.  51  :  10,  and 
e  converso  Ps.  6:3.  22:  15.  31:  11.)  There  is  no  need  of  supposing 
with  Hitzlg  that  the  human  frame  is  likened  to  a  tree  of  which  the  bones 
are  the  branches,  and  the  muscles,  flesh,  and  skin,  the  leaves.  (See  Job 
10:1 1.) — The  hand  of  God  is  known  when  his  power  is  recognised  as  the 
cause  of  any  given  effect.  Gesenius  makes  f^^l'p  the  passive  of  S'^'i'in  and 
nx  the  sign  of  the  second  accusative  (it  is  made  known  his  servants  i.  e.  to 
his  servants).  But  Hitzig  explains  the  first  word  as  the  passive  of  21^  and 
nx  as  a  preposition  equivalent  to  ^>  in  ch.  53  :  1  and  to  ^3"'>^  in  Ezek. 
38  :  23,  wliere  the  same  passive  verb  is  used.  The  English  Version  follows 
Luther  in  translating  cs'T  as  a  noun,  which  never  has  this  form,  however,  out 
of  pause.  It  is  correctly  explained  by  A.ben  Ezra  as  a  verb  with  Vav  con- 
versive.  The  nx  may  be  either  the  objective  particle,  as  this  verb  usually 
governs  the  accusative,  or  a  preposition  equivalent  to  ^>  crt  in  Dan.  11  :  30, 
and  to  our  expression,  he  is  angry  with  another.  Noyes  makes  this  verb 
agree  with  hand;  which  would  be  ungrammatical,  as  i;  is  feminine.  The 
whole  clause  is  omitted  in  Hendevverk's  translation.  It  is  important  as 
affording  a  transition  from  the  promise  to  the  threatening,  in  accordance  with 
the  Prophet's  constant  practice  of  presenting  the  salvation  of  God's  people 
as  coincident  and  simultaneous  with  the  destruction  of  his  enemies. 

V.  15.  For  lo,  Jehovah  in  fire  loill  come,  and  like  the  u-hirlwind  his 
chariots,  to  appease  in  fury  his  anger,  and  his  rebuke  in  flames  of  fire. 
This  is  an  amplification  of  the  brief  phrase  at  the  end  of  v.  14.  Lowth 
reads  as  afire,  with  the  Septuagint  version,  which  is  probably  a  mere  inad- 
vertence. Luther  and  others  translate  tvith  fire  (see  v.  16),  but  the  modern 
writers  generally  in  fire,  that  is  enveloped  and  surrounded  by  it,  as  on  Sinai. 
(See  above,  ch.  29  :  6.  30:  27,  30,  and  compare  Ps.  50  :  3.) — The  second 
clause  is  repeated  in  Jer.  4  :  13.  The  points  of  comparison  are  swiftness 
and  violence.  The  allusion  is  to  the  two-wheeled  chariots  of  ancient  war- 
fare. Vitringa  supposes  angels  to  be  mealit,  on  the  authority  of  Ps.  68 :  18. 
(Compare  Ps.  18  :  II.)  Hendewerk  supposes  an  allusion  to  the  chariots 
and  horses  of  fire,  mentioned  2  Kings  2:11.  6  :  17.  (Compare  Hab.  3  :  8.) 
The  English  Version  supplies  ivilh  before  his  chariots,  but  this  is  forbidden 


486  C  II  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  V  I . 

by  the  order  of  the  words  in  Hebrew,  and  unnecessary,  as  the  chariots  may 
be  construed  either  with  shall  come  or  with  the  substantive  verb  are  or  shall 
he. — Ewald  agrees  with  the  older  writers  who  give  -'«;rj  the  sense  of  ren- 
dering, returning,  recompensing,  wliich  it  has  in  Ps.  54:7.  Hos.  12:  15, 
and  in  which  it  is  construed  with  vengeance  in  Deut.  32  :  41,  43.  Render-* 
son  prefers  the  sense  of  causing  to  return,  implying  repetition  and  severity. 
Gesenius  adheres  to  the  usage  of  this  very  verb  and  noun  in  Ps.  78  :  38  and 
Job  9  :  13  (compare  Gen.  27  :  44,  45),  where  it  means  to  withdraw  anger 
i.  e.  to  appease  it,  which  may  seem  to  be  at  variance  with  the  context  here, 
but  is  really,  as  Maurer  has  observed,  the  most  appropriate  and  elegant 
expression  of  the  writer's  meaning,  which  is  that  of  wrath  appeased  by 
being  gratified.  (Compare  ch.  1  :  24  and  the  Earlier  Prophecies,  p.  17.) — 
Lowth's  emendation  of  the  test  by  reading  3"'t;in  (from  -'^f)  to  breathe  out 
is  gratuitous  and  not  supported  by  the  usage  of  that  verb  itself. — Luther 
and  Hendewerk  make  "Isx  n^n  a  kind  of  intensive  compound  (Zornesgluth), 
as  in  ch.  42  :  25  ;  but  it  is  better  with  Maurer  to  regard  <^?n3  as  qualifying 
S'^^'n  and  explaining  how  his  anger  was  to  be  appeased,  viz.  in  fury,  i.  e.  in 
the  free  indulgence  of  it. — God's  rebuke  is  often  coupled  with  his  wrath  as 
its  effect  or  practical  manifestation.  (See  above,  ch.  17  :  13.  51  :  20. 
54  :  9.)  Most  writers  seem  to  make  rebuke  dependent  on  the  preceding 
verb  ;  but  Hendewerk  apparently  regards  it  as  an  independent  clause,  exactly 
similar  in  form  to  the  second  member  of  the  sentence,  and  like  the  whirlwind 
his  chariots,  and  his  rthuke  inflames  ofjire.  The  leading  noun  may  then, 
instead  of  being  governed  by  -^-Jj^ ,  agree  with  is  or  shall  be  understood. 
The  whole  verse  represents  Jehovah,  considered  in  relation  to  his  enemies, 
as  a  consuming  fire.     (Deut.  4  :  24.   Heb.  12  :  29.     Comp.  2  Thess.  1  :  8.) 

V.  16.  For  by  fire  is  Jehovah  striving  and  bij  his  sword  ivith  all  flesh, 
and  multiplied  (or  many)  are  the  slain  of  Jehovah.  Fire  and  sword  are 
mentioned  as  customary  means  of  destruction,  especially  in  war.  The 
reflexive  form  use?  has  here  its  usual  sense  of  reciprocal  judgment,  litiga- 
tion, or  contention  in  general.  (See  above,  ch.  43  :  26.)  Gesenius  makes 
it  mean  directly  to  punish,  which  it  never  means  except  by  implication  :  and 
Hitzig,  on  the  same  ground,  explains  rix  as  the  sign  of  the  accusative  ;  but 
that  it  is  really  a  preposition  is  clear  from  Ezek.  17  :  20  and  Joel  4  :  2. — 
The  repetition  of  with  by  Noyes  and  Henderson,  '  with  fire,  with  his  sword, 
with  all  flesh,'  is  a  cacophonous  tautology  not  found  in  the  original,  where 
two  distinct  prepositions  are  employed,  which  Lowth  has  well  translated  by 
and  with. — According  to  Knobel,  all  flesh  means  all  nations,  and  especially 
the  Babylonians  who  had  not  been  sufficiently  punished  by  Cyrus.  Hen- 
derson applies  the  verses  to  the  battle  of  Armageddon,  described  in  Rev. 
16:  14-21.   19:  1 1-21,  and  Vitringa  admits  a  reference  to  the  same  event. 


CHAPTERLXVI.  487 

But  this  interpretation  rests  upon  the  false  assumption,  often  noticed  iiereto- 
fore,  that  the  Apocalyptic  prophecies  are  exegetical  of  those  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament from  which  their  images  and  terms  are  borrowed. — A  much  surer  clew 
to  the  primary  application  of  the  one  before  us  is  aftbrded  by  our  Saviour's 
words  in  Matlh.  24  :  2-2,  where  in  speaking  of  the  speedy  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  he  says  that  excepting  the  elect  no  flesh  should  be  saved,  i.  e. 
no  portion  of  the  Jewish  race  but  those  who  were  ordained  to  everlasting 
life  through  faith  in  him.  This  application  of  Isaiah's  prophecy  agrees 
exactly  with  the  view  already  taken  of  the  whole  preceding  context  as  relat- 
ing to  that  great  decisive  crisis  in  the  history  of  the  church  and  of  the  world, 
the  dissolution  of  the  old  economy  and  the  inauguration  of  the  new.  Accord- 
ing to  this  view  of  the  passage  what  is  here  said  of  fire,  sword,  and  slaughter, 
was  fulfilled  not  only  as  a  figurative  prophecy  of  general  destruction,  but  in 
its  strictest  sense  in  the  terrific  carnage  which  attended  the  extinction  of  the 
Jewish  state,  and  of  which,  more  emphatically  than  of  any  other  event  out- 
wardly resembling  it,  it  might  be  said  that  many  were  the  slain  of  Jehovah. 

V.  IT.  The  (men)  hallowing  themselves  and  the  (men)  cleansing 
themselves  to  (or  towanis)  the  gardens  after  one  in  the  midst,  eaters  of 
swine's  flesh  and  vermin  and  mouse,  together  shall  cease  (or  come  to  an  end), 
sailh  Jehovah.  This  verse  is  closely  connected  with  the  one  before  it,  and 
explains  who  are  meant  by  the  slain  of  Jehovah.  It  is  almost  universally 
agreed  that  these  are  here  described  as  gross  idolaters  ;  but  Henderson,  with 
some  of  the  old  Jewish  writers,  is  inclined  to  understand  it  of  the  Moham- 
medans, as  we  shall  see.  But  even  among  those  who  understand  it  of 
idolaters,  there  is  no  small  difference  of  opinion  in  relation  to  particular 
expressions.  The  class  of  persons  meant  is  obviously  the  same  as  that 
c^escribed  in  ch.  65  :  3,  5,  the  gardens  and  the  swine's  flesh  being  common 
to  both.  The  reflexive  participles  in  the  first  clause  are  technical  terms  for 
ceremonial  purification  under  the  law  of  Moses,  here  transferred  to  heaths 
rites.  The  older  writers  for  the  most  part  follow  the  Vulgate  in  explaining 
miin-'bN  as  synonymous  with  niiSa  in  ch.  65  :  3.  Even  Gesenius  admits 
this  sense,  although  he  gives  the  preference  to  that  of  for.  But  Maurer 
speaks  of  it  as  one  no  longer  needing  refutation,  and  returns  to  the  strict 
translation  of  the  Septuagint  (kV  toiV"  x/^ttoiv),  implying  that  they  purified 
themselves  not  in  but  on  their  way  to  the  gardens,  which  is  essentially  the 
sense  conveyed  by  the  translation  for,  i.  e.  in  preparation  for  the  gardens 
where  the  idolatrous  services  were  to  be  performed.  The  next  words 
(~!!fj5  "^r!?  ''•^^)  are  those  which  constitute  the  principal  difficulty  of  the 
sentence.  This  some  have  undertaken  to  remove  by  emendations  of  the 
text.  Even  theMasora  reads  rnx  ,  which  is  only  changing  the  gender  of  the 
numeral.     Ewald  assimilates  the  first  two  words  so  as   to  read  "ins  iris , 


488  CHAPTERLXVI. 

which  he  renders  hinteii  hinten,  i.  e.  far  back.  Lowth  on  the  other  hand 
reads  "inx  inx  one  one,  i.  e.  one  by  one,  or  one  after  the  other.  The  same 
reading  seems  to  be  implied  in  Luther's  version,  one  here  and  another  there. 
The  Peshito  has  one  after  another,  and  the  same  sense  is  expressed  by  the 
Targum,  crowd  after  crowd,  and  by  Symmachus  and  Theodotion  ont'aco 
aXX/jlwv.  SchelHng  accordingly  inserts  a  word,  reading  "inx  inw'<  nnx  . 
Whether  a  various  reading  is  implied  in  the  Septuagint  version  (ev  roig 
nQodvQoi^)  or  merely  a  peculiar  explanation  of  in>{  is  a  matter  of  dispute. 
Some,  without  a  change  of  text,  bring  out  the  same  sense  by  supposing  an 
ellipsis.  JMost  interpreters  take  "inx  (or  according  to  the  masoretic  Keri 
nnx)  as  the  numeral  one,  agreeing  either  with  grove  (Aben  Ezra),  or  with 
pool  (Kiinchi),or  with  tree  (Saadias),  or  with  priest  or  priestess  (Gesenius)  ; 
which  last  may  be  given  as  the  current  explanation,  in  which  an  allusion  is 
supposed  to  an  idolatrous  procession  led  by  a  hierophant.  Maurer  applies 
inx  to  the  idol,  which  he  supposes  to  be  so  called  in  contempt,  one  being 
then  equivalent  to  the  Latin  quidam,nescio  quern.  Vitringa  follows  Scaliger, 
Bochart,  and  other  learned  men  of  early  date,  in  treating  inx  as  the  proper 
name  of  a  Syrian  idol,  called  by  Sanchoniathon  "/^(^co^Oj,-  and  by  Pliny  and 
Macrobius  Adad,  the  last  writer  adding  expressly  that  the  name  means  one. 
For  the  difference  of  form  various  explanations  have  been  suggested,  and 
among  the  rest  a  corruption  in  the  classical  orthography,  which  is  rendered 
exceedingly  improbable,  however,  by  the  substantial  agreement  of  the  Greek 
and  Latin  writers  above  cited.  Rosenmiiller  acquiesces  in  Vitringa's 
suggestion  that  the  difference  of  form  may  be  explained  by  the  exclusion  of 
the  aspirate  from  the  middle  of  a  Greek  word,  the  hiatus  being  remedied  by 
the  insertion  of  a  dental ;  but  Gesenius  replies  that  "rns  would  more  naturally 
have  been  written  "A-j^aSog  and  Achadiis  in  Greek  and  Latin.  The  maso- 
retic reading  nnx  is  identified  by  Clericus  with  Hecate,  in  whose  Egyptian 
worship  swine's  flesh  was  particularly  used.  Henderson  calls  attention  to  a 
very  striking  coincidence  between  the  use  of  this  word  here  and  the  constant 
application  of  the  cognate  one  in  Arabic  (tX^()  by  the  Mohammedans  to 
God  as  being  One,  in  express  contradiction  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
This  is  especially  the  case  in  the  ll2th  Surah  of  the  Koran,  to  which  they 
attach  peculiar  doctrinal  importance.  The  common  editions  of  the  Vulgate 
render  "inx  here  hy  janua  (like  the  Peshito)  ;  but  some  of  more  authority 
have  unam,  in  accordance  with  the  marginal  Keri.  Besides  the  difliculty 
which  attends  the  absolute  use  of  the  numeral  without  a  noun,  there  is 
another  of  the  same  kind  arising  from  the  like  use  of  ':\)^  midst  without  any 
thing  to  limit  or  determine  it.  Gesenius  attaches  to  it  here,  as  he  does  in 
2  Sam.  4  :  6,  the  sense  of  the  interior  or  court  of  an  oriental  house,  and 
applies  it  to  the  edifice  in  which  the  lustrations  were  performed  before 
entering  the  gardens ;   which  may  also  be  the  meaning  of  the  Septuagint 


CHAPTERLXVI.  4S9 

version,  cjV  '^ovg  yJinovg,  iv  loTg  TTQoO^vQoig.  Maurerand  others  follow  Scaliger, 
who  makes  it  mean  the  midst  of  the  grove  or  garden,  where  the  idol  was 
commonly  erected.  But  Knobel,  by  ingeniously  combining  Gen.  42  :  5. 
Ps.  42  :  5.  Ps.  68  :  26,  makes  it  not  improbable  that  in  the  midst  means 
in  the  crowd  or  procession  of  worshippers.  All  these  constructions  adhere 
to  the  masoretic  points  and  interpunclion.  But  Lowth  and  Henderson 
follow  Theodotion  and  Symmachus  in  reading  ""ina  and  connecting  it 
directly  with  what  follows,  in  the  midst  of  those  eating  sivine's  Jlesh,  etc. 
implying,  as  Lowth  thinks,  a  participation  in  tliese  impure  rites,  while 
Henderson  supposes  the  Mohammedans  to  be  distinguished,  as  to  this  point, 
from  the  Pagans  who  surround  them.  Boettcher  departs  still  further  from 
the  usual  interpunction,  and  includes  "ins  not  in  the  description  of  the  sin, 
but  in  the  threatening  of  punishment — in  the  midst  of  the  eaters  of  swine's 
flesh  etc.  together  shall  they  perish.  One  reason  urged  by  Henderson  in 
favour  of  his  own  construction  is  without  weight,  namely,  that  c^bsx  being 
without  the  article  cannot  be  in  apposition  with  the  words  at  the  beginning 
of  the  sentence,  but  must  designate  a  totally  different  class  of  persons.  He 
did  not  observe  that  ■^^=x  is  rendered  definite  by  the  addition  of  a  qualifying 
noun,  which  being  equivalent  to  the  article  excludes  it.  As  to  the  eating 
of  swine's  flesh,  see  above,  on  ch.  65  :  4. — yi^.'^.  may  either  have  its  generic 
sense  of  abomination  or  abominable  food,  or  the  more  specific  sense  of  flesh 
offered  to  idols  (Hitzig),  or  of  the  smaller  unclean  animals,  whether  quad- 
rupeds, insects,  or  reptiles,  to  which  it  is  specially  applied  in  the  Law  (Lev. 
11  :  41—43),  and  in  reference  to  which  it  corresponds  very  nearly,  in  effect, 
to  the  English  word  vermin.  Spencer  thinks  that  it  means  a  kid  boiled  in 
its  mother's  milk.  (Ex.  2.3  :  19.  34  :  26.)  Against  the  wide  sense  of 
abomination  and  in  favour  of  some  more  specific  meaning  is  the  collocation 
of  the  word  between  swine's  flesh  and  the  mouse,  or  as  the  modern  writers 
understand  the  word  the  jerboa  or  Arabian  field-mouse,  which  is  eaten  by 
the  Arabs.  The  actual  use  of  any  kind  of  mouse  in  the  ancient  heathen 
rites  has  never  been  established,  the  modern  allegations  of  the  fact  being 
founded  on  the  place  before  us.  As  to  the  application  of  the  passage,  those 
who  make  the  Babylonian  exile  the  great  subject  of  the  prophecy,  see 
nothing  here  but  a  description  of  the  practices  of  those  Jews  who  aposta- 
tized to  heathenism,  and  who  were  to  be  cut  off  by  the  same  judgments 
which  secured  the  restoration  of  their  brethren.  J.  D.  jMichaelis  confesses 
his  uncertainty  in  what  sense  this  description  will  be  verified  hereafter  ;  and 
Henderson,  who  holds  the  same  hypothesis,  pleads  guilty  to  a  part  of  the 
same  ignorance,  but  bravely  and  ingeniously  endeavours,  by  the  combination 
of  the  particular  contrivances  already  mentioned,  to  impart  some  plausi- 
bility to  his  assumption  that  the  prophecy  has  reference  to  the  future 
restoration  of  the  Jews.     This  could  not  have  been  done  with  greater  skill 


490  CHAPTERLXVl. 

or  more  success  than  he  has  shown  in  lils  attempt  to  make  it  probable  that 
what  is  here  predicted  is  the  future  destruction  of  the  Moslems  as  the 
enemies  of  Christ's  divinity,  and  noted  for  their  trust  in  outward  rites,  espe- 
cially ablutions — their  destruction  in  the  midst  of  the  idolaters  whom  now 
they  hate  most  bitterly  and  most  profoundly  scorn.  This  explanation  seems 
to  have  been  framed  by  its  ingenious  author  without  any  reference  to  the 
dictum  of  the  Rabbins,  that  the  first  clause  of  the  verse  is  a  description  of 
the  Moslems  and  their  purifications,  but  the  next  of  the  Christians  as  eaters 
of  swinc-fiesh,  and  regardless  of  all  difference  in  meats  and  drinks.  The 
most  offensive  part  of  this  interpretation,  although  extant  in  the  writings  of 
Kimchi  himself,  has  been  expunged  from  most  editions  for  prudential 
motives.  (See  Vitringa  on  the  passage.)  It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  the 
advocates  of  any  exegetical  hypothesis  will  here  abandon  it  if  able  by  any 
means  to  reconcile  it  with  the  Prophet's  language,  and  accordingly  I  see  no 
cause  to  change  my  previous  conclusion  that  this  prophecy  relates  to  the 
excision  of  the  Jews  and  the  vocation  of  the  gentiles,  or  in  other  words  the 
change  o(  dispensation.  The  apparent  difficulty  which  arises  from  the 
description  of  such  gross  idolatry  as  all  admit  to  have  had  no  existence 
among  the  Jews  after  their  return  from  exile,  is  removed  by  the  considera- 
tion that  the  Jews  were  cast  off  not  for  the  sins  of  a  single  generation,  but 
of  the  race  throughout  its  ancient  history,  and  that  idolatry  was  not  only 
one  of  these,  but  that  which  most  abounded  in  the  days  of  the  Prophet ;  so 
that  when  he  looks  forward  to  the  great  catastrophe  and  paints  its  causes, 
he  naturally  dips  his  pencil  in  the  colours  which  were  nearest  and  most  vivid 
to  liis  own  perceptions,  without  meaning  to  exclude  from  his  description 
other  sins  as  great  or  greater  in  themselves,  which  afterwards  supplanted 
these  revolting  practices  as  the  besetting  national  transgressions  of  apostate 
Israel.  A  writer  in  the  early  days  of  Wilberforce  and  Clarkson  in  denouncing 
God's  wrath  upon  England  would  most  naturally  place  the  oppression  of 
the  negro  in  the  foreground  of  his  picture,  even  if  he  had  been  gifted  to 
foresee  that  this  great  evil  in  the  course  of  time  would  be  completely 
banished  from  the  sight  of  men  by  new  forms  of  iniquity  successively 
usurping  its  conspicuous  position,  such  as  excessive  luxury,  dishonest  specu- 
lation, and  ambitious  encroachment  on  the  rightful  possessions  of  inferior 
powers  in  the  east.  If  it  were  really  God's  purpose  to  destroy  that  mighty 
kingdom  for  its  national  offences,  he  would  not  lose  sight  of  ancient  half- 
forgotten  crimes,  because  they  have  long  since  given  place  to  others  more 
or  less  atrocious.  So  in  reference  to  Israel,  although  the  generation  upon 
whom  the  final  blow  fell  were  hypocrites,  not  idolaters,  the  misdeeds  of  their 
fathers  entered  into  the  account,  and  they  were  cast  off  not  merely  as  the 
murderers  of  the  Lord  of  Life,  but  as  apostates  who  insulted  Jehovah  to  his 
face  by  bowing  down  to  stocks  and  stones  in  groves  and  gardens,  and  by 


CHAPTERLXVI.  491 

eating  swine's  flesh,  the  abomination,  and  the  mouse.  And  as  all  this  was 
included  in  the  grounds  of  their  righteous  condemnation,  it  might  well  be 
rendered  prominent  in  some  of  the  predictions  of  that  great  catastrophe. — 
Another  possible  interpretation  of  the  passage,  in  direct  application  to  the 
unbelieving  Jews  who  were  contemporary  with  our  Saviour,  is  obtained  by 
supposing  an  allusion  to  v.  3,  where  those  who  still  clung  to  the  abrogated 
ritual  are  put  upon  a  level  with  the  grossest  idolaters,  and  may  here  be 
absolutely  so  described,  just  as  the  rulers  and  people  of  Jerusalem  in  ch. 
1  :  9  are  addressed  directly  as  rulers  of  Sodom  and  people  of  Gomorrah,  on 
account  of  the  comparison  immediately  preceding.  This  view  of  the  passage 
is  undoubtedly  favoured  by  the  mention  of  swine's  flesh  in  both  places,  which 
would  naturally  make  the  one  suggestive  of  the  other.  Neither  of  these 
exegetical  hypotheses  requires  the  assumption  of  imaginary  facts,  such  as  the 
practice  of  idolatry  by  the  Jews  in  exile,  or  their  return  to  it  hereafter. 

V.  18.  And  I — their  ivorks  and  their  thoughts — it  is  come — to  gather 
all  the  nations  and  the  tongues — and  they  shall  come  and  see  my  glory. 
This  is  an  exact  transcript  of  the  Hebrew  sentence,  the  grammatical  con- 
struction of  which  has  much  perplexed  interpreters.  Luther  cuts  the  knot 
by  arbitrary  transposition,  /  will  come  and  gather  all  their  worlcs  and 
thoughts  tvith  all  nations  etc.  ;  J.  D.  Michaelis,  by  a  no  less  arbitrary 
change  of  pointing,  so  as  to  read,  they  are  my  vjorJc,  even  mine,  and  my 
thought,  i.  e.  care.  Tremellius  and  Cocceius  among  the  older  writers,  Hitzig 
and  Hendewerk  among  the  moderns,  follow  Jarchi  in  taking  the  pronoun  as 
a  nominative  absolute  and  construing  ^in2  with  the  nouns  preceding  :  As 
for  me — their  works  and  thoughts  are  come  to  gather  etc.  Hitzig  explains 
are  come  as  meaning  they  have  this  effect ;  while  Hendewerk  gives  to  the 
nouns  themselves  the  sense  of  recompense,  as  in  ch.  40  :  10  and  Rev.  14  :  13. 
Henderson  has  substantially  the  same  construction,  but  supplies  before  me 
after  come,  and  takes  "j'?!^^  as  a  simple  future,  I  will  assemble ;  both  which 
assumptions  are  extremely  forced.  Vitringa,  Gesenius,  and  most  other 
writers,  suppose  an  aposiopesis  or  a  double  ellipsis,  supplying  a  verb  after 
"'^ifj  and  a  noun  before  t^5<2.  The  verb  most  commonly  supplied  is  know, 
as  in  the  English  Version  (I  know  their  works  and  their  thoughts),  and  sub- 
stantially in  the  Chaldee  Paraphrase  (revealed  before  me  are  their  works 
and  thoughts).  The  noun  supplied  is  time,  according  to  the  dictum  of  Aben 
Ezra.  But  the  verb  supplied  by  Maurer  is  /  ivill  punish,  and  he  makes 
nxa  impersonal,  it  comes  or  it  is  come,  as  we  say,  Is  it  come  to  this  ?  without 
referring  to  a  definite  subject.  In  this  obscurity  and  doubt  as  to  the  syntax, 
there  is  something  attractive  in  the  theory  of  Ewald  and  Knobel,  who  sup- 
ply nothing,  but  regard  the  first  clause  as  a  series  of  broken  and  irregular 
ejaculations,  in  which  the  expression   of  the  thought  is  interrupted  by  the 


492  CHAPTERLXVI. 

writer's  feelings. — Common  to  all  these  explanations  is  the  general  assump- 
tion that  the  words  and  thoughts  of  the  persons  in  question  are  in  some  way 
represented  as  the  cause  or  tiie  occasion  of  the  gailiering  mentioned  in  the 
other  clause.  The  use  of  the  word  tongues  as  as  an  equivalent  to  nations, 
has  reference  to  national  distinctions  springing  from  diversity  of  language, 
and  is  founded  on  Gen.  10  ;  5,  20,  31,  by  the  influence  of  which  passage 
and  the  one  before  us  it  became  a  phrase  of  frequent  use  in  Daniel,  whose 
predictions  turn  so  much  upon  the  calling  of  the  gentiles.  (Dan.  3  :  4,  7,  31. 
5  :  19.)  The  representation  of  this  form  of  speech  as  an  Aramaic  idiom  by 
some  modern  critics  is  characteristic  of  their  candor. — To  see  the  glory  of 
Jehovah  is  a  phrase  repeatedly  used  elsewhere  to  denote  the  special  mani- 
festation of  his  presence  and  his  power  (ch.  40  :  4.  59  :  19.  60  :  2),  and 
is  applied  by  Ezekiel  to  the  display  of  his  punitive  justice  in  the  sight  of 
all  mankind  (Ezek.  39:  8).  Cocceius  refers  this  passage  to  the  Reforma- 
tion and  the  Council  of  Trent.  The  Jews  understand  it  of  the  strokes  to 
be  inflicted  hereafter  on  their  enemies.  But  as  we  have  seen  that  the  crimes 
described  in  the  foregoing  verses  are  not  those  of  the  heathen,  but  of  the 
apostate  Jews,  whose  deeds  and  thoughts  must  therefore  be  intended  in  the 
first  clause,  the  explanation  most  in  harmony  with  this  immediate  context, 
as  well  as  with  the  whole  drift  of  the  prophecy  thus  far,  is  that  which  makes 
the  verse  before  us  a  distinct  prediction  of  the  calling  of  the  gentiles,  both 
to  witness  the  infliction  of  God's  vengeance  on  the  Jews,  and  to  supply  their 
places  in  his  church  or  chosen  people.  It  is  perhaps  to  the  language  of 
this  prophecy  that  Christ  himself  alludes  in  Matt.  24  :  31.  (Compare  also 
John  5  :  25.) 

V.  19.  And  1 10 III  jjlace  in  them  (or  among  them)  a  sign,  and  I  will 
send  of  them  survival's  (or  escaped  oJies)  to  the  nations,  Tarshish,  Pul,  and 
Lud,  drawers  of  the  how,  Tubal  and  Javan,  the  distant  isles,  which  have 
not  heard  my  fame  and  have  not  seen  my  glory,  and  they  shall  declare  my 
glory  among  the  nations.  By  a  sign  Grotius  understands  a  signal,  making 
nix  equivalent  to  o?  in  ch.  5  :  26.  11  :  12.  18  :  3.  62  :  10.  Gesenius 
objects  to  the  sense  thus  put  upon  J^ix  as  not  sustained  by  usage  ;  but  Mau- 
rcr  defends  it  as  easily  deducible  from  that  of  a  military  standard,  which  it 
has  in  Num.  2  :  2.  Most  modern  writers  agree,  however,  with  Gesenius  in 
determining  the  sense  of  the  whole  phrase  from  that  which  it  evidently  has 
in  Ex.  10  :  1,  2,  wliere  God  is  twice  said  to  have  placed  his  signs  among 
the  Egyptians,  with  evident  allusion  to  the  plagues  as  miraculous  evidences 
of  his  power.  Explained  by  this  analogy,  the  clause  before  us  would 
appear  to  mean,  I  will  work  a  miracle  among  them  or  before  them. — The 
c^a^Q,  as  in  ch.  4  :  3,  are  the  survivors  of  the  judgments  previously  men- 
tioned.    These  are  sent  to  the  nations,  of  whom  some  arc  then  particularly 


CHAPTER    LXVI.  493 

mentioned.  For  the  sense  of  Tarshish,  see  above,  on  cb.  60  :  9.  Its  use 
here  may  be  regarded  as  decisive  of  the  question  whether  it  denotes  the  sea. 
Even  the  Septuagint,  the  oldest  authority  for  that  interpretation,  here  retains 
the  Hebrew  word  ;  and  Luther,  though  lie  still  translates  it  sea,  is  compelled 
to  avoid  a  palpable  absurdity  by  altering  the  syntax  so  as  to  read  to  the 
nations  on  the  sea,  whereas  Tarshish  is  added  to  the  general  term  nations 
precisely  as  the  other  names  are  added  afterwards.  The  incongruity  of  this 
translation  of  the  word  is  exhibited  without  disguise  in  the  Vulgate,  ad 
gcjitcs,  in  mare,  in  Africam,  etc.,  so  that  the  sea  stands  first  in  a  catalogue 
o{ nations. — Pul  is  identified  by  Bochart  with  the  island  Philae  in  the  Nile 
on  the  frontier  of  Ethiopia  and  Egypt ;  which  Gesenius  rejects  as  improbable, 
without  proposing  any  better  explanation.  Hitzig  and  Knobel  regard  it  as 
an  orthographical  variation  or  an  error  of  the  text  for  Put  or  Phut,  which 
is  elsewhere  joined  with  L}t(I  (Jer.  46  :  9.  Ezek.  27  :  10)  and  rejieatedly 
written  in  the  Septuagint  fl'ovd  (Gen.  10:6.  1  Chron.  1  :  8),  the  same 
form  which  that  version  here  employs.  All  agree  that  the  name  belongs  to 
Africa,  like  that  which  follows,  Lud,  the  Liidim  of  Gen.  10:3  and  Jer. 
46  :  9,  elsewhere  represented  as  archers  (Ezek.  27  :  10.  30  :  5).  There 
is  no  ground,  therefore,  for  suspecting,  with  Lowth  and  J.  D.  Michaelis,  that 
nop  ■'zon  is  an  error  of  the  text  for  "['C'o  Meshech,  although  that  name  fre- 
quently occurs  in  connexion  with  the  following  name  Tubal  (Gen.  10:2. 
Ez.  27  :  13,  etc.)  as  denoting  the  Moaxoi  y.(u  Ti^anrivo]  of  Herodotus.  Javan 
is  the  Hebrew  name  for  Greece  (Gen.  10  :  2.  Dan.  8  :  21.  Zech.  9:  13), 
perhaps  identical  with  Ion  or  Ionia.  Gesenius  quotes  a  Scholiast  on  Aristo- 
phanes as  saying,  nurrag  tovg'EXXijvag  'luovug  oi  ^uQ^aQot  r/.aXovv.  The  same 
name  essentially  exists  in  Sanscrit.  Even  Henderson,  instead  of  finding 
here,  as  might  perhaps  have  been  expected,  a  specific  promise  of  the  future 
conversion  (or  reconversion)  of  the  nations  specified,  affirms  that  they  are 
"obviously  given  as  a  sample."  This  is  rendered  still  more  certain  by  the 
addition  of  the  general  expression,  the  remote  coasts  or  islands ;  for  the  sense 
of  which  see  above,  on  ch.  41  :  1.  It  is  not  without  plausibility  suggested 
by  Vitringa,  that  some  of  the  obscure  names  here  used  were  selected  for  the 
express  purpose  of  conveying  the  idea  of  remote  and  unknown  regions. 
The  restriction  of  the  promise  to  the  very  places  mentioned  would  be  like 
the  proceeding  of  a  critic  who  should  argue  hereafter  from  the  mention  of 
Greenland,  India,  Africa,  and  Ceylon,  in  Heber's  Missionary  Hymn,  that 
the  zeal  of  English  Protestants  extended  only  to  those  portions  of  the  hea- 
then world.  As  this  interpretation  of  the  hymn  would  be  forbidden,  not 
only  by  the  general  analogy  of  figurative  language  and  of  lyric  composition, 
but  by  the  express  use  of  such  universal  phrases  as  "from  pole  to  pole"  in 
the  very  same  connexion,  so  in  this  case  it  is  plain  that  the  essential  mean- 
ing of  the  whole  enumeration  is  that  expressed  in  the  following  clause  :  ivho 


494  C  H  A  P  T  E  R    L  X  V  I . 

have  7iot  heard  my  fame  and  have  not  seen  my  glory  ?  Lowlh's  poor  attempt 
at  emendation  of  the  text  by  reading  name  for  fame  ("rtii  for  ''^.'ct)  is  not 
only  built  upon  a  false  assumption  of  unvaried  uniformity  in  the  expression 
of  the  same  idea,  but  unsupported  even  by  the  Septuagint  version  (ovofm), 
which  Kocher  has  shown  to  be  a  frequent  equivalent  in  that  translation  for 
the  Hebrew  ^^'^^  . — As  to  the  meaning  of  the  whole  verse,  or  the  nature  of 
the  event  which  it  predicts,  interpreters  differ  in  exact  accordance  with  their 
several  hypotheses.  Gesenius  understands  by  the  sign  here  promised,  the 
extraordinary  confluence  of  Jews  from  all  parts  of  the  world.  Hitzig  agrees 
with  the  Rabbins  in  supposing  it  to  designate  a  miraculous  slaughter  of  the 
enemies  of  Zion,  which  they  however  represent  as  future,  while  he  supposes 
that  the  writer  expected  it  to  take  place  at  the  time  of  the  return  from  Baby- 
lon. According  to  Henderson,  "  the  missionaries  to  be  sent  to  the  different 
parts  of  the  world  are  gentiles,  who  sliall  have  been  present  at,  but  have 
not  perished  in,  the  great  overthrow  in  Palestine."  All  these  explanations 
proceed  upon  the  supposition  that  the  pronoun  (hem,  which  is  twice  used  in 
the  first  clause,  must  refer  to  the  tongues  and  nations  mentioned  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse,  and  Henderson  speaks  of  its  reference  to  the  Jews  themselves 
as  "  violent."  But  this  is  only  true  on  the  assumption  that  the  nineteenth 
verse  describes  something  subsequent  in  time  to  the  eighteenth,  which  is  not 
only  needless  but  at  variance  with  the  context.  For  with  what  consistency- 
could  the  Prophet  represent  all  nations  as  assembled  at  Jerusalem  and  then 
the  survivors  or  escaped  among  them  being  sent  to  all  the  7iations  1  To 
say  that  the  first  is  a  figure  of  speech,  is  only  saying  what  may  just  as  well 
be  said  of  the  other.  If  the  Prophet  really  presents  to  us  in  v.  18  the  image 
of  a  general  assemblage  of  the  nations,  we  have  no  right  to  suppose  that  in 
the  next  verse  he  has  quite  forgotten  it.  The  only  way  in  which  these 
seeming  contradictions  can  be  reconciled  is  by  assuming  what  is  in  itself 
most  natural  and  perfectly  agreeable  to  usage,  namely,  that  v.  19  does  not 
describe  the  progress  of  events  beyond  the  time  referred  to  in  v,  IS,  but 
explains  in  what  way  the  assemblage  there  described  is  to  be  brought  about. 
I  will  gather  all  nations.  By  what  means  ?  I  will  send  those  who  escape 
my  judgments  to  invite  them.  Both  verses  being  then  collateral  and  equally 
dependent  on  v.  17,  the  pronoun  them  refers  to  the  persons  there  described, 
viz.  the  apostate  Jews  whose  excision  is  the  subject  of  this  prophecy.  The 
whole  may  then  be  paraphrased  as  follows  :  Such  being  their  character,  I 
will  cast  them  off  and  gather  the  nations  to  take  their  place ;  for  which  end 
I  will  send  forth  the  survivors  of  the  nation,  the  elect  for  whose  sake  these 
•days  shall  be  shortened  when  all  besides  them  perish,  to  declare  my  glory 
in  the  regions  where  my  name  has  never  yet  been  heard.  Thus  understood, 
the  passage  is  exactly  descriptive  of  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  at  the 
beginning  of  the  new  dispensation.     All  the  first  preachers  were  escaped 


CHAPTERLXVI.  495 

Jews,  plucked  as  brands  from  the  burning,  saved  from  that  perverse  genera- 
tion (Acts  2:40).  The  sign  will  then  denote  the  whole  miraculous  display 
of  divine  power,  in  bringing  the  old  dispensation  to  a  close  and  introducing 
the  new,  including  the  destruction  of  the  unbelieving  Jews  on  the  one  hand, 
and  on  the  other  all  those  signs  and  wonders  and  divers  miracles  and  eifts  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  (Heb.  2  :  4),  which  Paul  calls  the  signs  of  an  apostle 
(2  Cor.  12  :  12),  and  which  Christ  himself  had  promised  should  follow 
them  that  believed  (Mark  16  :  17).  All  these  were  signs  placed  among 
them,  i.  e.  among  the  Jews,  to  the  greater  condemnation  of  the  unbelievers, 
and  to  the  salvation  of  such  as  should  be  saved. — That  there  will  not  be 
hereafter  an  analogous  display  of  divine  power  in  the  further  execution  of 
this  promise,  cannot  be  proved,  and  need  not  be  affirmed  ;  but  if  there  never 
should  be,  it  will  still  have  had  a  glorious  fulfilment  in  a  series  of  events  com- 
pared with  which  the  restoration  of  the  Jewish  people  to  the  land  of  Canaan 
is  of  little  moment. 

V.  20.   And  they  shall  bring  all  your  brethren  from  all  nations,  an 
oblation  to  Jehovah,  with  horses,  and  with  chariot,  and  with  litters,  and 
with  mules,  and  with  dromedaries,  on  my  holy  mountain  Jerusalem,  saith 
Jehovah,  as  the  children  of  Israel  bring  the  oblation  in  a  clean  vessel  to  the 
house  of  Jehovah.     The  verb  at  the  beginning  may  be  construed  either  with 
the  messengers  of  v.  1  9,  or  indefinitely  as  denoting  '  men  shall  bring  your 
brethren,'  equivalent  in  Hebrew  usage  to  'your  brethren  shall  be  brought.' 
Although  this  last  construction  is  in   perfect  agreement  with  analogy,  the 
other  is  not  only  unobjectionable  but  entitled  to  the  preference  as  much 
more  graphic  and  expressive.      The  survivors  sent  forth  to  the  nations  are 
then  described  as  bringing  back  the  converts  to  the  true  religion  as  an  offer- 
ing to  Jehovah.     Their  return  for  this  purpose  is  described  as  easy,  swift, 
and  even  splendid,  all  the  choicest  methods  of  conveyance  used  in  ancient 
times  being  here  combined   to  express  that  idea.     As  to  the  sense  of  the 
particular  expressions  there  is  no  longer  any  dispute  or  doubt,  and  a  general 
reference  may  be  made  to  the  lexicons.     Lowth  here  exhibits  an  extraordi- 
nary lapse  of  taste  and  judgment  in  transforming  litters  into  councs,  as  if  this 
uncouth  Persian  word,  which  he  had  found  in  Thevenot,  could  make  the' 
sentence  either  more  perspicuous  or  better  English,     With  equal  riuht  he 
might  have  introduced  the  native  or  vernacular  name  of  the  peculiar  oriental 
mule  etc.     It  does  not  even  matter  as  to  the  general  meaning  of  the  verse, 
whether  a  -:2  was  a  coach,  a  litter,  or  a  wagon,  since  either  would  suggest 
the  idea  of  comparatively  rapid  and  convenient  locomotion. — The  nn?^  was 
the  stated  vegetable  offering  of  the  Mosaic  ritual.      It  was  commonly  com- 
posed of  flour  with  oil  and  incense ;  but  the  name,  in  its  widest  sense,  may 
be  considered  as  including  fruits  and  grain  in  a  crude  as  well  as  a  prepared 


496  CH  AP  T  ER    LX  VI. 

state.  This  oblation  seems  to  be  selected  here  as  free  from  the  concomitant 
ideas  of  cruelty  and  grossness  which  were  inseparable  from  bloody  sacrifices. 
The  'ix'^2;;  at  the  end  cannot  be  grammatically  rendered  as  a  past  tense, 
which  form  Hitzig  here  adopts  perhaps  in  accommodation  to  his  theory  as 
to  the  composition  of  the  passage  during  the  Babylonish  exile.  Even  in 
that  case,  however,  the  future  would  be  perfectly  appropriate,  as  implying 
an  expected  restoration  of  the  ancient  rites,  much  more  if  we  suppose  that 
the  verse  was  written  before  they  had  ever  been  suspended. — The  only 
general  excgetical  question  in  relation  to  this  verse  is  whether  your  brethren 
means  the  scattered  Jews  or  the  converted  gentiles.  Here  again,  all  depends 
upon  a  foregone  conclusion.  Henderson  says,  "  that  your  brethren  means 
the  Jews  there  can  be  no  doubt,"  in  which  he  is  sustained  by  ihe  Jews 
themselves,  and  by  Maurer,  Hitzig,  Hendewerk,  and  Knobel ;  while  the 
opposite  conclusion  is  considered  equally  indubitable  not  only  by  Vitringa 
but  by  Gesenius,  Ewald,  and  Umbreit.  In  answer  to  the  question  how  the 
Jews  are  to  be  thus  brought  by  the  nations,  when  the  gathering  of  the 
nations  is  itself  to  be  occasioned  by  the  previous  gathering  of  tiie  Jews,  he 
replies  that  the  verse  "  regards  such  Jews  as  might  not  yet  have  reached 
the  land  of  their  fathers,"  as  if  this  contingent  possible  residuum  could  be 
described  as  all  your  brethren  from  all  nations  !  How  inextricably  this 
one  case  is  implicated  in  the  general  question  as  to  the  subject  and  design 
of  the  prophecy,  appears  from  the  fact  that  those  who  apply  this  expression 
to  the  Jews  content  themselves  with  citing  all  the  other  places  in  Isaiah 
where  precisely  the  same  doubt  exists  as  in  the  case  before  us.  In  favour 
of  the  other  explanation  Vitringa  adduces  and  perhaps  too  strongly  urges 
Paul's  description  of  the  gentiles  as  an  oblation  which  he  as  an  officiating 
priest  offered  up  to  God.  (Rom.  15  :  26.)  Although  it  may  be  doubted 
whether  Paul,  as  Vitringa  says,  there  formally  explains  or  even  quotes  this 
prophecy,  his  obvious  allusion  to  its  images  and  terms  shows  at  least  that 
he  considered  them  as  bearing  such  an  application,  and  in  the  absence  of 
any  other  gives  it  undoubtedly  a  clear  advantage.  Another  suggestion  of 
Vitringa,  not  unworthy  of  attention,  is  that  there  may  here  be  special  refer- 
ence to  the  early  converts  from  the  heathen  world  considered  as  the  Jirst 
fruits  of  the  spiritual  harvest ;  which  agrees  well  with  the  wide  use  of  the 
technical  term  nns-a  as  already  stated,  and  with  the  frequent  application  of 
the  figure  of  first  fruits  to  the  same  subject  in  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

V.  21.  And  also  of  them  will  I  take  for  the  priests  for  the  Leviies 
3aith  Jehovah.  Many  manuscripts  supply  and  before  the  second  for,  and 
Lowth  considers  it  necessary  to  the  sense,  and  accordingly  inserts  it.  The 
peculiar  form  of  the  common  text  may  be  intended  to  identify  the  two 


CHAPTERLXVI.  497 

classes,  as  in  point  of  fact  the  priests  were  all  without  exception  Levites. 
It  seems  at  least  to  be  implied  that  the  distinction  is  in  this  case  of  no  con- 
sequence, both  names  being  given  lest  either  should  appear  to  be  excluded. 
The  only  question  here  is  to  what  the  pronoun  them  refers.     The  Jews  of 
course  refuse  to  understand  it  of  the  gentiles  ;  and  even  Joseph  Kimchi,  who 
admits  this  application  as  required  by  the  context,  avoids  all  inconvenient 
consequences  by  explaining  for  the  priests  and  Levites,  to  mean  for  their 
service,  as  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water !     Gesenius,  Rosenmiiller, 
Maurer,  Ewald,  and  Umbreit,  do  not  hesitate  to  understand  the  promise  of 
the  gentiles,  and  to  see  in  it  an  abrogation  of  the  ancient  national  distinc- 
tions, without  seeming  to  remember  the  directly  opposite  interpretation  put 
by  some  of  themselves  upon  ch.  61  :  5,  6.     Hitzig  and  Knobel,  more  con- 
sistent in  their  exposition,  go  back  to  the  ground  maintained  by  Grotius  and 
the  rabbins,  namely,  that  of  them  means  of  the  scattered  Jews,  who  should 
not  be  excluded  from  the  honours  of  the  priestly  office.     But  why  should 
mere  dispersion  be  considered  as  disqualifying  Levites  for  the  priesthood  ? 
Or  if  the  meaning  be  that  the  levitical  prerogative  should  be  abolished,  why 
is  the  promise  here  restricted  to  the  exiles  brought  back  by  the  nations  ?     If 
the  Prophet  meant  to  say,  all  the  other  tribes  shall  share  the  honours  of  the 
tribe  of  Levi,  he  could   hardly  have  expressed  it  more  obscurely  than  by 
saying,  'also  of  them   (the   restored   Jews)   will   he   take   for   priests   and 
Levites.' — Of  those  who  adopt  the   natural   construction   which  refers  of 
them  to  gentile  converts,  some  with  Cocceius  understand  this  as  a  promise 
that    they  shall    all    be   admitted   to   the   spiritual    priesthood    common    to 
believers.     But  Vitringa  objects  that  the  expressions  I  will  take  and  of 
them,  both  imply  selection  and  discrimination.     He  theiefore  refers  it  to  the 
Christian  ministry,  to  which  the  gentiles  have  as  free  access  as  Jews.     There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  this  office  might  be  so  described  in  a  strongly  figura- 
tive context,  where  the  functions  of  the  ministry  were  represented  in  the 
same  connexion  as  sacerdotal  functions.     But  the  only  offering  here  men- 
tioned is  the  offering  of  the  gentile  converts  as  an  oblation  to  Jehovah,  and 
the  priesthood  meant  seems  therefore  to  be  merely  the  ministry  of  those  by 
whom  their  conversion  was  effected.     The  most  natural  interpretation  there- 
fore seems  to  be  as  follows.     The  mass  of  the  Jewish  people  was  to  be  cast 
off  from  all  connexion  with  the  church  ;  but  the  elect  who  should  escape 
were  to  be  sent  among  the  nations  and  to  bring  them  for  an  offering  to  Jeho- 
vah, as  the  priests  and  Levites  ofiered  the  oblation  at  Jerusalem.     But  this 
agency  was  not  to  be  confined  to  the  Jews  who  were  first  entrusted  with  it ; 
not  only  of  them,  but  also  of  the  gentiles  themselves,  priests  and  Levites 
should  be  chosen  to  offer  this  oblation  i.  e.  to  complete  the  vocation  of  the 
gentiles.     Should  the  context  be  supposed  to  require  a  still  more  general 
meaning,  it  may  be  that  the  sacerdotal  mediation  of  the  ancient   Israel 

32 


498  CHAPTERLXVI. 

between  Jehovah  and  the  other  nations,  which  was  symbolized  by  the 
Levitical  and  Aaronic  priestliood,  was  to  cease  with  the  necessity  that 
brought  it  into  being,  and  to  leave  the  divine  presence  as  accessible  to  one 
race  as  another. 

V.  22.  For  as  the  neiv  heavens  and  the  new  earth,  which  I  am  ma'king 
(or  about  to  make),  are  standing  (or  about  to  stand)  before  me,  saith  Jeho- 
vah, so  shall  stand  your  name  and  your  seed.     To  the  reference  of  the  pre- 
ceding vei-se  to  the  gentiles  it  is  urged  as  one  objection,  that  the  verse  before 
us  does  not  give  a  reason  for  the  promise  so  explained  ;  for  how  could  it  be 
said  that  God  woidd  put  them  on  a  level  with  the  Jews  because  the  name 
and  succession  of  the  latter  were  to  be  perpetual  ?     But  this  objection  rests 
upon  the  false  assumption,  running  through  the  whole  interpretation  of  this 
book,  that  the  promise  is  addressed  to  Israel   as  a  nation  ;  whereas  it  is 
addressed  to  Israel  as  a  church,  from  which  the  natural   descendants  of 
Jacob  for  the  most  part  have  been  cut  off,  and  the  object  of  this  verse  is  to 
assure  the  church  that  notwithstanding  this  excision  it  should  still  continue 
to  exist,  not  only  as  a  a  church  but  as  the  church,  the  identical  body  which 
was  clothed  in  the  forms  of  the  old  dispensation  and  which  still  survives 
when  they  are  worn  out  and  rejected.     The  grand  error  incident  to  a  change 
of  dispensations  was  the  very  one  which  has  perverted  and  obscured  the 
meaning  of  these  prophecies,  the  error  of  confounding  the  two  Israels  whom 
Paul  so  carefully  distinguishes,  and  of  supposing  that  the  promises  given  to 
the  church  when  externally  identified  with  one  race  are  continued  to  that 
race  even  after  their  excision  from  the  church.     It  was  to  counteract  this 
very  error  that  the  verse  before  us  was  recorded,  in  which  God's  people, 
comprehending  a  remnant  of  the  natural  Israel  and  a  vast  accession  from  the 
gentiles,  are  assured  that  God  regards  them  as  his  own  chosen  people,  not  a 
new  one,  but  the  same  that  was  of  old,  and  that  the  very  object  of  the  great 
revolution  here  and  elsewhere  represented  as  a  new  creation  was  to  secure 
their  perpetuity  and  constant  recognition   as  his   people.     Since  then  he 
creates  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth  for  this  very  purpose,  that  purpose 
cannot  be  defeated  while  these  heavens  and  that  earth  endure. — The  Jews 
themselves  understand  this  as  a  promise  that  their  national  pre-eminence  shall 
be  perpetual,  and  several  of  the  modern  German  writers  give  it  the  same 
sense  in  reference  to  the  New  Jerusalem  or  Jewish  state  after  the  Babylo- 
nish exile.     Henderson  goes  with  them  in  making  it  a  promise  to  the  Jews, 
but  stops  short  at  the  turning-point  and  represents  it  as  ensuring  merely  that 
"  they  shall  never  be  any  more  rejected,  but  shall  form  one  fold  with  the 
gentiles  under  the  one  Shepherd  and  Bishop  of  souls,  the  Great  Messiah." 
How  this  assurance  affords  any  ground  or  reason  for  the  previous  declara- 
tion, as  explained  by  Henderson,  "  that  the  performance  of  divine  service 


CHAPTER    LXVl.  499 

shall  not  be  restricted  to  the  tribe  of  Levi,  but  shall  be  the  common  privilege 
of  the  whole  people,"  does  not  appear,  and  cannot  well  be  imagined. 

V.  23.  And  it  shall  be  (or  C07ne  to  pass)  that  from  new-moon  to  new- 
moon  (or  on  every  new-moon),  and  from  sabbath  to  sabbath  (or  07i  every 
sabbath),  shall  come  all  flesh  to  bow  themselves  (or  ivorshij))  before  me, 
saith  Jehovah.  The  form  of  expression  in  the  first  clause  is  so  idiomatic 
and  peculiar  that  it  does  not  admit  of  an  exact  translation.  A  slavish  copy 
of  the  original  would  be,  '  from  the  sufficiency  of  new  moon  in  its  new  moon 
and  from  the  sufficiency  of  sabbath  in  its  sabbath.'  As  to  '^'il'?,  see  above, 
oh.  28:  19.  It  often  stands  where  we  should  say  as  often  as  (1  Sam. 
18  :  30.  1  Kings  14  :  28).  The  antecedent  of  the  pronoun  seems  to  be  the 
noun  itself.  Gesenius  accordingly  explains  the  whole  to  mean,  as  often  as 
the  new-moon  comes  in  its  new-moon,  i.  e.  its  appointed  time.  (Compare 
Num.  28  :  10.)  But  although  the  form  is  so  peculiar,  there  is  no  doubt 
among  modern  writers  as  to  the  essential  meaning,  viz.  from  new-moon  to 
new-moon  or  at  every  new-moon.  The  idea  of  Cocceius  that  every  new- 
moon  is  here  represented  as  occurring  in  a  new-moon,  and  every  sabbath 
in  a  sabbath,  because  there  is  one  perpetual  new-moon  and  sabbath,  shows 
a  disposition  to  convert  an  idiom  into  a  mystery.  The  Septuagint  and  Vul- 
gate read  'there  shall  be  a  month  from  a  month,  and  a  sabbath  from  a  sab- 
bath,' which  appears  to  have  no  meaning.  The  other  ancient  versions  are 
equally  obscure. — At  these  stated  periods  of  public  worship  under  the  old 
economy  (those  of  most  frequent  recurrence  being  specified)  all  fesh  shall 
come  up  to  worship  before  me.  According  to  the  Jewish  doctrine  this  can 
only  mean  'must  come  up  to  Jerusalem,'  and  the  Septuagint  actually  has  the 
name.  Against  this  restriction  Henderson  protests,  "  as  it  is  absolutely 
Impossible  that  all  should  be  able  to  repair  thither."  Yet  in  his  note  upon 
the  next  verse  he  observes  that  "  the  scene  is  laid  in  the  environs  of  Jeru- 
salem ;"  and  he  makes  no  attempt  to  Indicate  a  change  of  subject  in  the  verbs, 
or  an  interruption  of  the  regular  construction.  By  combining  his  two  com- 
ments, therefore,  we  obtain  this  sense,  that  '  from  month  to  month  and  from 
sabbath  to  sabbath  all  flesh  shall  come  to  worship  before  God,  wherever  they 
may  be,  in  all  parts  of  the  earth,  and  shall  go  out  into  the  environs  of  Jeru- 
salem and  see'  etc.  If  it  be  possible  in  any  case  to  reason  from  the  context, 
it  would  seem  plain  here,  that  as  the  scene  in  the  last  verse  is  laid  in  the 
environs  of  Jerusalem  it  must  be  laid  there  in  the  one  before  it;  as  the  same 
sentence  is  continued  through  botli  verses,  and  the  subjects  of  the  verbs  in 
the  contiguous  clauses  are  confessedly  identical.  On  our  hypothesis  there 
is  no  more  need  of  excluding  Jerusalem  from  one  verse  than  the  other,  since 
the  Prophet,  in  accordance  with  his  constant  practice,  speaks  of  the  eman- 
cipated church  in  language  borrowed  from  her  state  of  bondage ;  and  that 


500  CHAPTERLXVl. 

this  form  of  expression  is  a  natural  one,  may  be  inferred  from  the  facility 
with  which  it  is  perpetuated  in  the  common  parlance  of  the  church  and  of 
religion,  the  Jerusalem  or  Zion  of  our  prayers  and  hymns  being  perfectly 
identical  with  that  of  the  prophecy  before  us.  Thus  understood,  the  verse 
is  a  prediction  of  the  general  diffusion  of  the  true  religion  with  its  stated 
observances  and  solemn  forms. 

V.  24.  And  they  shall  go  forth  and  gaze  upon  the  carcases  of  the  men 
who  revolted  (or  apostatized)  from  me,  for  their  worm  shall  not  die  and 
their  fire  shall  not  be  quenched,  and  they  shall  be  an  horror  to  all  flesh. 
The  first  verb  may  be  construed  as  it  is  by  Ewald  indefinitely,  '  they  i.  e. 
men,'  without  defining  them  ;  but  in  so  vivid  a  description,  it  is  certainly  more 
natural  to  give  the  verbs  a  definite  subject,  and  especially  the  one  that  had 
been  previously  introduced,  viz.  the  worshippers  assembled  from  all  nations 
to  do  homage  at  Jerusalem. — The  noun  I'iN'nn  occurs  only  here  and  (with  a 
slight  variation)  in  Dan.  12:  2.  The  ancient  versions  seem  to  have  derived 
it  from  nxn,  and  to  have  given  it  the  sense  of  sight  or  spectacle.  The  Sep- 
tuagint  has. simply  tig  oQaaiv;  but  the  Targum  and  Vulgate  seem  to  make 
tile  word  a  compound  from  ns'i  and  "'';] ,  as  the  former  has, '  the  wicked  shall 
be  judged  in  Gehenna  till  the  just  say  of  them,  we  have  seen  enough,'  and 
the  latter,  erunt  usque  ad  saiietatem  visionis.  The  modern  lexicographers 
refer  it  to  an  Arabic  root  expressive  of  repulsion,  and  explain  the  noun  itself 
to  mean  abhorrence  or  disgust. — This  sublime  conclusion  has  been  greatly 
weakened  and  obscured,  by  the  practice  of  severing  it  from  the  context  as  a 
kind  of  moral,  application,  practical  improvement,  or  farewell  warning  to 
the  reader.  All  this  it  is  incidentally  and  with  the  more  complete  effect 
because  directly  and  primarily  it  is  an  integral  part  of  the  "  great  argument" 
with  which  the  whole  book  has  been  occupied,  and  which  the  Prophet  never 
loses  sight  of  to  the  end  of  his  last  sentence.  The  grand  theme  of  these 
prophecies,  as  we  have  seen,  is  the  relation  of  God's  people  to  himself  and 
to  the  world,  and  in  the  latter  stages  of  its  history,  to  that  race  with  which 
it  was  once  outwardly  identical.  The  great  catastrophe  vy'ith  which  the 
vision  closes  is  the  change  of  dispensations,  comprehending  the  final  aboli- 
tion of  the  ceremonial  law,  and  its  concomitants,  the  introduction  of  a  spiritual 
worship  and  the  consequent  diffusion  of  the  church,  its  vast  enlargement  by 
the  iiitr()(hiclion  of  all  gentile  converts  to  complete  equality  of  privilege  and 
honour  wiili  the  believing  Jews,  and  the  excision  of  the  unbelieving  Jews 
from  all  connexion  with  the  church  or  chosen  people,  which  they  once  ima- 
gined to  have  no  existence  independent  of  themselves.  The  contrast 
between  these  two  bodies,  the  rejected  Jews,  and  their  believing  brethren 
forming  one  great  mass  with  the  believing  gentiles,  is  continued  to  the  end, 
and  presented  for  the  last  time  in  these  two  concluding  verses,  where  the 


CHAPTER    LXV  I.  501 

whole  is  condensed  into  a  single  vivid  spectacle,  of  which  the  central  figure 
is  Jerusalem  and  its  walls  the  dividing  line  between   the   two  contrasted 
objects.     Within  is  the  true  Israel,  without  the  false.     Within,  a  great  con- 
gregation, even  "  all  flesh,"  come  from  the  east  and  the  west,  and  the  north 
and  the  south,  while  the  natural  children  of  the  kingdom  are  cast  out.  (Matth. 
8  :  12.)     The  end  of  the  former  is  left  to  be  imagined  or  inferred  from  other 
prophecies,  but  that  of  the  latter  is  described,  or  suggested  in  a  way  more 
terrible  than  all  description.     In  the  valley  of  the  son  of  Hinnom,  under  the 
very  brow  of  Zion  and  Moriah,  where  the  children  were  once  sacrificed  to 
Moloch,  and  where  purifying  fires  were  afterwards  kept  ever  burning,  the 
apostate  Israel  is  finally  exhibited,  no  longer  living  but  committed  to  the 
flames  of  Tophet.     To  render  our  conception  more  intense  the  worm  is 
added  to  the  flame,  and  both  are  represented  as  undying.     That  the  con- 
trast hitherto   maintained  may  not  be  forgotten  even  in  this  closing  scene, 
the  men  within  the  walls  may  be  seen  by  the  light  of  those  funereal  fires 
coming  forth  and  gazing  at  the  ghastly  scene,  not  with  delight  as  some  inter- 
preters pretend,  but  as  the  text  expressly  says  with  horror.     The  Hebrew 
phrase  here  used  means  to  look  with  any  strong  emotion,  that  of  pleasure 
which  is  commonly  suggested  by  the  context  being  here  excluded  not  by 
inference  or  implication  merely  but  by  positive  assertion.     The  whimsy  of 
Grotius  that  the  verse  describes  the  unburied  bodies  of  the  enemies  slaugh- 
tered  by  the  Maccabees  and  the  protracted  conflagration  of  their  dwellings, 
needs  as  little  refutation  as  the  Jewish  dream  that  what  is  here  described 
is  the  destruction  of  the  enemies  of  Israel  hereafter.     In  its  primary  mean- 
ing, I  regard  it  as  a  prophecy  of  ruin  to  the  unbelieving  Jews,  apostate 
Israel,  to  whom   the   Hebrew   phrase   here  used   ("^3  diSJ'iiQii)   is  specially 
appropriate.     But  as  the  safety  of  the  chosen  remnant  was  to  be  partaken 
by  all  other  true  believers,  so  the  ruin  of  the  unbelieving  Jew  is  to  be  shared 
by  every  other  unbeliever. — Thus  the  verse  becomes  descriptive  of  the  final 
doom  of  the  ungodly,  without  any  deviation  from  its  proper  sense,  or  any 
supposition  of  a  mere  allusion  or  accommodation   in  the  use  of  the  same 
figures  by  our  Lord  himself  in  reference  to  future  torments.     All  that  is 
requisite  to  reconcile  and  even  to  identify  the  two  descriptions  is  the  con- 
sideration that  the  state  of  ruin  here  described  is  final  and  continuous,  how- 
ever it  may  be  divided,  in  the  case  of  individuals,  between  the  present  life 
and  that  which  is  to  come.     Hell  is  of  both  worlds,  so  that  in   the   same 
essential  sense  although  in  difli'erent  degrees  it  may  be  said  both  of  him  who 
is  still  living  but  accursed,  and  of  him  who  perished  centuries  ago,  that  his- 
worm  dieih  not  and  his  fire  is  not  quenched. 


THE    END. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


7    13^ 


Pr-.^. 


^rr  p   vr'  ,  ^ 


:  ' )  / 


LIBRARY  USE 


^N  V:}^r>i 


DEC  11  1951 


^(L'^V^  jf^JXtK 


Q^ui^Cc  -/u^- 


^ 


IBRARY 


^t?r 


■^ 


INTER 

LDAR 


i^' 


5-p  2i  m3 


RFC^D  LE^ 


JAN  2  9 'G4 -9  AM 


!    )    .. 


r^OO    '    H 


pa9 


gr 


M/';^    7 '67 -a 


LO/ 


NOV  2  ^- 


LD  21-100m-7,'39(402s) 


U.  C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CD^7^^33S7 


t- 


■'■»< 


